- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) In this case, the petitioner has made a prayer to allow him to join duty in the office of respondent No.4. Further, it is prayed that respondents may be directed to make payment of 2/3rd salary for the period the petitioner remained under suspension so also he has prayed for payment of the amount of State Insurance and Provident Fund.
(3.) After issuance of notice by this Court, in this petition, it is brought to the notice of this Court by way of filing reply by the respondents that services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 18th September 1992 and that order is not under challenge. The petitioner has preferred this petition in the year 2005 and in this writ petition also he has not challenged the order of termination. The counsel for the State vehemently argued that after following procedure of law petitioner was terminated from service vide Annex.R/1. Before termination, information was publicized in the newspaper on 7th January 1992 whereby the petitioner was called to join duties and further petitioner was given opportunity to join the duties.;