- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition was filed in the year 2000 challenging the order dated 09.12.1999 by which the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent No.4/5 in exercise of powers under U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. On 10.01.2000, an interim order was passed in this case as under: "Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add respondent No.5 to the writ petition. Learned standing counsel is allowed two months' time to file counter affidavit. The respondents initiated inquiry proceedings against the petitioner. The inquiry officer in his inquiry report dated 15/11/99, Annexure -5 to the writ petition, did not find the petitioner guilty of the charges framed against him. After the inquiry report the respondents No.5 has terminated the services of the petitioner by order dated 9/12/99 without even considering the inquiry report. In view of the fact that the petitioner has been working as forest guard since 1985 and in view of division bench decision of this court in State of U.P. Vs. Puttilal, 1998 1 UPLBEC 313, the petitioner is entitled for interim order. Until further orders of this court, the effect and operation of termination order dated 9/12.99 passed by respondent No.5, Annexure -1 to the writ petition shall remain stayed. The petitioner shall be continued in service and paid his salary."
(3.) IN pursuance of the aforesaid interim order, the petitioner has continued in service and has also been allowed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation, i.e. 30.09.2013. As, on account of the pendency of this writ petition, the claim of the petitioner for grant of post retirement benefits including pension was not being acceded, therefore, he filed an application for amendment seeking the said relief. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the writ petition against the termination of service is decided, the consequences will follow and it is not necessary to consider the amendment application.;