- (1.) HEARD Sri D. R. Shukla learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the oppo site parties 1,2,4 and 5.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against the judgment and order dated 14. 3. 1996 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and the order dated 10. 12. 1985 by which his services were terminated. THE brief facts of the case are that father of the petitioner late Sri Ram Dhiraj was working as Class IV employee in Rajkiya Vastukala Mahavidyalaya, Lucknow. Father of the petitioner expired while he was in service and on an application moved by the petitioner he was appointed on the post of Chowkidar by the order dated 19. 3. 1983 under the U. P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974. By the impugned order dated 10. 12. 1985, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the opposite party No. 5. THE petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned termination order dated 10. 12. 1985, filed a claim pe tition before the-State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow which was registered as Claim Petition No. 87/1/1986. THE said claim petition was contested by the oppo site parties and it was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 14. 3. 1996. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment of the petitioner was made against a permanent post under the provisions of the U. P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 and as such the provisions of U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termi nation of Service) Rules, 1975 were not applicable and the impugned termination order is arbitrary and illegal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in Ravikaran Singh v. State of U. P. and others, (1999) 3 UPLBEC 2263. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submits that there is no illegality in the impugned termination order dated 10. 12. 1985 as the appointment order itself reveals that the petitioner was ap pointed on temporary basis. He further submits that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order passed by the State Public Services Tribunal. He further submits that the work and conduct of the petitioner was not satisfactory and in pursuance of the provisions of the U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975, the impugned termination order dated 10. 12. 1985 was passed.
(3.) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is admitted case of the parties that father of the petitioner, late Sri Ram Dhiraj was working as Class IV employee in Rajkiya Vastukala Mahavidyalaya, Lucknow who expired while he was in service. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground under the provisions of the UP. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was appointed by the order dated 19. 3. 1983 on a Class IV post. It is settled law that the appointments made under the provisions of the UP. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants/ttying in Harness Rules, 1974 are of permanent nature. Since appoint ment of the petitionerwas of permanent nature, the provisions of UP. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 were not applicable. The impugned termination order dated 10. 12. 1985 is legally not sustainable,;