- (1.) M. M. Ghildiyal, J. Heard Sri Rahul Kansal, holding brief of Sri N. S. Pundir, learned coun sel for the petitioner, at length, and learned standing counsel for respond ents.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the fol lowing reliefs: (a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, calling for impugned order of termination of the petitioners' service dated 0/-12-1988 passed by respondent no. 3, as contained in Annexure 16 and quash the same, (b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the re spondents no. 1 to 4 to allow the petitioners to resume his duties forth with at the post of Udyogik Parivekshak, in the office of the Zila Udyogik Kendra, Dehradun, as before. (c) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the re spondent nos. 3 and 4 to treat the petitioners in continuous services at the post of Udyogik Parivekshak in the office of the Zila Udyogik Kendra, Dehradun and to pay to them all their so far remaining unpaid pay, allowances and other dues payable for the said post, right from the date of their first joining the said post i. e. 11 -01 -1988 and 13-01 -1988, un til the date of their resuming the duties again at the said post and to continue to keep him in serv ice at the said post with all the service benefits admissible under the relevant service rules, as if the impugned order of termination of services had never been passed at all; (d) Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction, of such nature to the respondents 1 to 4 or any of them, to give to the petition ers such other relief as may be necessary in the facts and cir cumstances of the case as well as in the interest of justice. (e) A ward the costs of this writ pe tition to the petitioners against re spondents no. 1 to 4. By the impugned order dated 0/-12-1988 passed by respondent no. 3 the services of petitioners, who were ap pointed as Industrial Cooperative Super visor vide order dated 24-12-1987 passed by respondent no. 3, had been terminated with immediate effect. It is mentioned in the appointment letter that petitioners are appointed on temporary basis. The services of the petitioners, who were appointed temporarily, are gov erned by the U. P. Temporary Govern ment Servant (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975. Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules specifically states that the services of temporary government servant can be terminated under these rules after giving one month notice from both side or one month's salary in lieu thereof. From pe rusal of the termination order it appears that Rule 3 of U. P. Temporary Govern ment Servant (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975 has not been complied with.
(3.) THE Allahabad High Court on 02-01-1989 passed an order that until further orders, operation of order dated 0/-12-1988 by which the services of the petition ers were terminated, shall remain stayed. About more than 18 years have passed, petitioners are still continuing in the services. Respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that appointment of the petitioners was not made by the Competent Authority. Averment made in the counter affidavit does not reflect in the impugned order. Termination order is simpliciter. Re spondents have not complied with the Rule 3 of the aforesaid rules before pass ing impugned order.;