S. H. A. Raza, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 2-11-83 passed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal-I, Lucknow (hereinafter called as Tribunal) in Claim Case No. 515 of 1980, In re: Pooran Chand v. State of U. P. and others whereby the learned Tribunal had allowed the claim of the claimant and had declared that the claimant shall be deemed to have continued in service with all benefits including pay after having recorded a finding to the effect that the order of termination was void ab nitio as well as the order rejecting the representations contained in Annexures 5 and 8 to the claim petition as without jurisdiction.
(2.) THE State of U. P. in this writ petition has alleged that on 14-3-55 opposite party no. 1 Sri Pooran Chand was initially appointed as Assistant Consolidation Commissioner, U. P. THEreafter on 15-1-57 the opposite party no. 1 was given appointment to officiate as Consolidation Officer vide G. O. No. 10617 (l)-A-443/5o. On 15-1-65 the services of the opposite party no. 1 were terminated by means of an order simpliciter but on 8-9-1960 the opposite party no. 1 was appointed afresh to officiate as Consolidation Officer vide order passed by the Consolidation Commissioner. It has been averred that the order of appointment of the opposite party no; 1 was a fresh appointment and it was mentioned that if opposite party no. 1 wishes to accept the fresh appointment he may accept the same. The opposite party no. 1 joined the office on 1-10-66 in pursuance of the letter of appointment issued by the Consolidation Commissioner. It was further averred that this fresh appointment dated 8-9-66 was given in pursuance of the representations made by the opposite party no. 1 to the authorities concerned and the appointment letter indicated that he was free to accept the appointment if he so desired. When opposite party no 1 got the appointment and he did not get the desired declaration that he continued in service with all benefits etc. from the State of U. P., opposite party no. 1 filed claim petition bearing No. 515 of 1980. In claim petition the opposite party no. 1 averred that by means of order dated 14-3-55, he was appointed as Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order passed by the Director of Consolidation, U. P. Lucknow He joined the service as Assistant Consolidation Officer and was posted at Unnao. Thereafter, on June 15, 1957 vide Gazette Notification No. 10617 (1) 1-A- 448/56, opposite party no. 1 was promoted to the post of Consolidation Officer. It was further averred that on 13-1-65 his services were terminated. The opposite party no. 1 thereafter represented to the authorities concerned. Later on he received an order from Sri Kahar Singh, the then Consolidation Commissioner, U. P. appointing him to officiate on the temporary post of Consolidation Officer with effect from the date of his joining. Opposite Party no. 1 made every possible efforts for the disposal of his appeal which he had preferred. Ultimately on 13-7-79 the opposite party no. 1 was intimated that all his reminders, memoradum dated 13-9-66, 8-3-67,31-5-67 and 8-5-68 were rejected.
(3.) IT was further submitted in the claim petition that the then Consolidation Commissioner Sri Kehar Singh, who terminated the services of opposite party no. 1 was not at all empowered to terminate the services of opposite party no. 1 as he was not the appointing authority. IT was further stated that there cannot be any appointment on post. All appointments are made on the post of Assistant Consolidation Officer. A direct appointment on the post of Consolidation Officer was actually an order of re-instatement of the opposite party no. 1 The claim petition was contested by the State of U. P. on the ground that the claim petition was barred by time and the same was not maintainable and secondly that the appointing authority of opposite party no. 1 was the Consolidation Commissioner and services of the opposite party no. 1 were rightly terminated by him.;