- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Present petition arises out of original Suit No. 2167 of 1971, filed by the respondent No. 2 for declaration that the order of termination dated 7-4-1971 was illegal and inoperative and the he was entitled to continue in service and is directed against the order dated 4-3-1980 passed by U. P. Public Ser vice Tribunal, for short "the Tribunal", rejecting the claim petition of the petitioner.
(2.) THE suit was filed by the respon dent No. 2 with the allegations that he was appointed as Qurk Amin on 10-2-1963, he was performing his duties in accordance with law; but his services were terminated arbitrarily and illegally vide order dated 7-4-1971. A notice under Section 80, C. P. C. was served but since the defendants did not give any satisfactory reply, the suit was filed for the above mentioned reliefs. The suit was contested by the petitioner with the allegations that by the order of termination no stigma was cast upon the petitioner and the order of ter mination did not suffer from any infirmity and illegality. The parties produced evidence oral and documentary in support of their respective cases. The trial Court after con sidering the evidence on the record returned the findings against the plaintiff- respondent No. 2 and dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 4-3-1980.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2 aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court preferred Civil Appeal No. 409 of 1974, before, the appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal the U. P. Public Service Tribunal Act 1976 was enforced and the above noted civil appeal stood transferred to the Public Service Tribunal where the case was registered as Claim Petition No. 617 (T)/iii/78. The U. P. Public Sei vice Tribunal-respondent No. 1, reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court and allowed the appeal/claim peti tion. The operative portion of the judg ment passed by the respondent No. 1 is quoted below: "we accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the termination order dated 7-4-1971 and hold that if the post of Agricultural Amin con tinued even after April 19th, the claimant will be deemed to have continued in service; since how ever, we are aware that the posts of Agriculture Amins were abolished w. e. f. 31-8-1975. We think that there is no question of reinstatement of the claimant but he will be entitled to salary upto 31-8-1975. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs. " Learned Standing Counsel ap pearing for the petitioner submitted that the judgment and order passed by the respondent No. was wholly illegal and was liable to be setaside in as much as the order of termination passed against the respon dent No. 2 was quite legal and valid. It did not cast stigma upon the respondent No. 2. Therefore, the same cannot be said to have been passed by way of punishment. The view taken to the contrary by the Tribunal is manifestly erroneous and illegal.;