ORDER : This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief : “… to issue order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings issued vide Rc.No.To/14/16 dated 30.03.2019 as highly illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to Principles of Natural Justice with all consequential benefits and by setting asie the proceedings in Rc.No.To/14/16 dated 30.03.2019 in orally terminating the services issued by the 3rd respondent and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to continue the petitioner as semi-skilled Analyst in the office of Assistant Director of Agriculture (SOIL Conservation), Arakuvally with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders …” 2. Petitioner was appointed as Semi-skilled Analyst in the year 2003. Subsequently, posts were sanctioned by the Government and respondent No.2 vide Rc.No.1577/05/To dated 26.12.2005 permitted respondent No.3 to appoint one semi-skilled Analyst. Therefore, petitioner was continued in the said post. While petitioner was rendering his services, basing on oral instructions of Chief Conservator of Forests, Visakhapatnam Circle, Visakhapatnam, circular vide Rc.No.TO/14/16, dated 30.03.02019 was issued by Assistant Director of Agriculture (Soil Conservation), Arakuvalley, instructing Agricultural Officers (Soil Conservation), Arakuvalley, Hukumpeta and Asst. Engineer (Soil Conservation), Pedaguda centres/ranges not to engage any lab or field persons along with drivers on petty contract basis w.e.f. 01.04.2019 for maintenance of silt/Sediment Monitoring Stations and services of respective persons have been dispensed with in the division on the afternoon of 31.03.2019. As per the averments in the affidavit, petitioner was orally informed not to attend the duties. However, said notice/memo was displayed in the notice board. Assailing the said notice/memo, above writ petition is filed. 3. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.3. In the counter affidavit, it was contended, inter alia, that petitioner was appointed as Silt Analyst on petty contract basis on daily basis during 2003. Though petitioner was engaged, he was not continuously engaged for the entire month and he was engaged only for 26 days in a month. Petitioner was continued in the work till 30.03.2019 on petty contract basis/outsourcing. As there was no necessity in the absence of required work, the services of petitioner was dispensed along with four other workers w.e.f. 30.03.2019. 4. Petitioner was continued in the work till 30.03.2019 on petty contract basis/outsourcing. As there was no necessity in the absence of required work, the services of petitioner was dispensed along with four other workers w.e.f. 30.03.2019. 4. Wages were paid to the petitioner treating him as skilled person from the budget under 272-Maintenance under work charged component. Rs.2,27,604/-, Rs.38,922/- and Rs.38,922/- were deposited in the account of individual on 04.03.2019 and 25.03.2019 towards wages on petty contract, for the period from April 2017 to March, 2019. Petitioner refused to receive discontinuation orders and hence, the order was kept in notice board. There is no illegality in the proceedings impugned. There is no requirement of work of the petitioner and hence he was discontinued w.e.f. 30.03.2019. Though petitioner worked for 16 years on daily wages, he was not engaged continuously and there was break in service. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard Smt. Jayanthi, learned counsel representing Smt. K. Rajya Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I. 6. This Court by way of interim order dated 09.08.2019, directed respondents to continue services of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without issuing any notice, by impugned proceedings, dated 30.03.2019, petitioner was directed not to attend the office. She would also submit that petitioner has been working as Semi-skilled Analyst since 2003. After lapse of nearly fifteen years, authorities orally directed petitioner not to attend the office and the said action is arbitrary. It also affects petitioner’s right to lead a decent life. Learned counsel further submits that though the appointment orders contain that appointment is temporary and may be terminated at any time, since petitioner has been continuing for the last fifteen years, authority ought to have issued notice before disengaging petitioner. In support of her contentions, learned counsel placed reliance upon decision reported in Basudeo Tiwary v. Sido Kanhu University and Others, 1998 (8) SCC 194 . 8. Learned Government Pleader while reiterating averments of counter affidavit, placed reliance on K. Aroquia Radja and Others v. Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries Board and Others, 2013 (3) SCC 780 . 9. The point to be considered is, whether the petitioner, who has been working under respondents on temporary basis, is entitled to any notice before his disengagement? 10. As stated supra, petitioner was engaged as Semi-skilled Analyst. 9. The point to be considered is, whether the petitioner, who has been working under respondents on temporary basis, is entitled to any notice before his disengagement? 10. As stated supra, petitioner was engaged as Semi-skilled Analyst. Petitioner failed to place relevant material regarding petitioner’s employment. However, the averments made in the writ affidavit are not disputed by the respondents. 11. Circular Rc.No.TO/14/16, dated 30.03.2019 would indicate that due to inadequacy of work and non-release of budget, services of petitioner and others were disengaged. Service of the petitioner is not disengaged on the ground of any illegality or misconduct. Appointment order itself discloses that petitioner is engaged on contract basis by meeting expenditure from works component. Whether, disengaging petitioner without issuing notice would affect the right of petitioner to lead normal life, and hence is violative of Art 21 of the Constitution of India, needs to be considered. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Basudeo Tiwary’s case (referred to supra) pointed out that if notice is not given to the petitioner, then it is like playing Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark, that is, if the employee concerned whose rights are affected, is not given notice of such a proceeding and a conclusion is drawn in his absence such a conclusion would not be just, fair and reasonable. 13. In Olga Tellis and Others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985 (3) SCC 545 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under : “32. The sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far reaching. It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of the death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. And yet, such deprivation would not have to be in accordance with the procedure established by law. If the right to livelihood is not regarded as a part of the right to life, that, which alone makes its possible to live, leave aside what makes life liveable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to life. Deprive a person of his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him of his life…”. 14. In K. Aroquia Radja and Others (referred to supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the appointment of Coterminous and by placing reliance upon State of Gujarat v. P.J. Kampavat, 1992 (3) SCC 226 held as under : “20. … where persons concerned were appointed directly in the office of the Chief Minister on purely temporary basis for a limited period up to the tenure of the Chief Minister. This Court held that such an appointment was purely a contractual one and it was co-terminous with that of the Chief Minister’s tenure, and such service came to an end simultaneously with the end of tenure of the Chief Minister. Hence, no separate order for termination or even notice was necessary for putting an end to such a service.” 15. In the case on hand, the post of Semi-skilled Analyst is not co-terminous. Petitioner has been rendering his services in the said post since 2003 and the same was continued till 2019 i.e. nearly for two decades. Having utilized services for nearly two decades, now disengaging him on the ground of inadequacy of work and non-release of budget is arbitrary and unsustainable. 16. The contention of respondent that engaging the petitioner is purely temporary and the services can be terminated at any time without issuing any prior notice cannot be accepted since the petitioner has been working in the organization nearly for two decades. Be it, on the ground of misconduct or any other ground, notice should be issued to an employee before termination or disengaging services even in case of temporary employee. Both the learned counsel submitted that, the petitioner is continuing in service by virtue of interim order. 17. Be it, on the ground of misconduct or any other ground, notice should be issued to an employee before termination or disengaging services even in case of temporary employee. Both the learned counsel submitted that, the petitioner is continuing in service by virtue of interim order. 17. Considering the facts of this case, coupled with interim order, dated 09.08.2019 passed by this Court, this court is inclined to dispose of writ petition with the following directions: Respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall issue notice to the petitioner, in case, they want disengage his services and consider the explanation of the petitioner and pass necessary orders strictly in accordance with law. Till then 2nd and 3rd respondents pass orders in accordance with law, both the respondents shall continue the petitioner in service. 18. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.