Paritosh K. Mukherjee, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Niyaz Ahmad has moved this writ petition, inter alia, challenging the order of termination dated May 18, 1988 passed by District Magistrate, Basti, which has been set out in Annexure-VI to writ petition.
(2.) IT appears from the said order that the order of termination was passed by invoking the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Asthayee Sarkari Sevak (Seva Samapti) Niyamawali, 1975. Short facts stated in writ petition are as follows : The petitioner's father, who was a Peon in the office of District Magistrate, Basti, died during his service period on January 27, 1971. Since there was no other member in the family of the petitioner, getting any income, it became difficult for him and his family to survive. The peti tioner, therefore, applied for being absorbed in the office of District Magis trate, Basti. Ultimately the petitioner was appointed on the post of 'Peon' on "leave vacancy", initially on July 11, 1973 and continued to work to the full satisfaction of the officers. The petitioner moved several applications for his services being regularised on his post but respondent No. 2 did not pay any attention to the problems of the petitioner. Ultimately the peti tioner represented to the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur who directed the respondent No. 2 to absorb the petitioner at a regular post because he was the senior most candidates working on non- regular basis. The said direction dated November 19, 1975 is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. According to petitioner, despite direction issued by the Commissioner he was not absorbed by respondent No. 2 and was compelled to continue on non-regular basis. The petitioner made several representa tions before the higher authorities but could not get any result. Copy of such a representation dated May 31, 1986 is contained in Annexure II to the writ petition. It is admitted case that petitioner continued to work as 'Peon' from 11-7-1973 to 19-5-1988. In the meantime, however, the petitioner was appointed on the post of 'Peon' at the place of one Umadutt Pandey, who retired from service with effect from 31-3-1986. A copy of said appointment letter has been annexed as Annexure-ill to the writ petition. The petitioner continued to work on his post, but without any rhyme or reason, he was astonished to get the notice, dated May 19, 1988 which was received by him on June 10, 1988 by which his services were terminated. A copy of the impugned order of termination is set out in Annexure-VI to the writ petition. It appears from the notice of termination that petitioner's services have been terminated by invoking the provisions of aforesaid 1975 Rules. In the notice it was only indicated that the petitioner's services were no longer required by the respondent authorities.
(3.) SRI D. K. Singh appearing for the petitioner submits that firstly, since the petitioner was appointed in the vacancy of one Umadutt, the petitioner's services should be regularised in view of Regularisation Rules, and secondly, since the petitioner was continuing on the post of 'Peon' from July 11, 1973 till July 5, 1986 his services cannot be terminated by passing the impugned order which cannot be treated as "termination" simpliciter." In support of his contention learned counsel petitioner has placed strong reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in tlie case of Government Branch Press v. D. B. Belliappa, AIR 1979 SC 429 wherein the Supreme Court has observed that services of a temporary Government servant cannot be dispensed without invoking provisions of Article 311 of the Con stitution of India.;