IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 620 of 2003 (S/B) State of Uttar Pradesh and others …..Petitioners. Versus Vikram Singh and another …..Respondents. Present : Mr. Bindesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P. S. Rawat, Advocate for the private respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, CJ Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) Sub-rules 1 and 2 of Rule 3 of the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 are as follows:- “3. Termination of service.- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any existing rules or orders on the subject, the services of a Government servant in temporary service shall be liable to terminate at any time by notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government servant. (2) The period of notice shall be one month: Provided that the service of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith, and on such termination the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances, if any, for the period of the notice or as the case may be, period for which such notice falls short of one month at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his services: Provided further that it shall be open to the appointing authority to relieve a Government servant without any notice or accept notice for a shorter period, without requiring the Government servant to pay any penalty in lieu of notice: Provided also that such notice given by the Government servant against whom a disciplinary proceeding is pending or contemplated shall be effective only if it is accepted by the appointing authority, provided in the case of a contemplated disciplinary proceeding, the Government servant is informed of the non-acceptance of his notice before the expiry of that notice.” The expression “temporary service” used in Sub-rule 1 of Rule 3 of the said Rules has been defined by Rule 2 of the said Rules in the manner as follows:- “2. Definition.- In these rules “temporary service” means officiating or substantive service on a temporary post, 2 or officiating service on a permanent post under the Uttar Pradesh Government.” Therefore, in terms of the said Rules, temporary service would be officiating as well as substantive service on a temporary post, or officiating service on a permanent post. Service of a person, who is officiating on a temporary post or on a permanent post or has been substantively appointed on a temporary post, can be terminated under the said Rules. By taking recourse to the said Rules, service of a person appointed temporarily on a permanent post cannot be terminated. In the instant case, as would be evident from the appointment letter, the private respondent herein was appointed on temporary basis, but not on a temporary post, nor was appointed for officiating on a permanent post. The logical conclusion, therefore, would be that he was appointed on temporary basis on a permanent post. That being the situation, his services could not be terminated by taking recourse to the said Rules. On 5.5.1980, the private respondent was appointed as such. Prior thereto, on 1.10.1977 he was appointed on contractual basis. Subsequent to 5.5.1980, many others were similarly appointed. On 24.9.1988, by taking recourse to the said Rules, services of the private respondent were terminated. The respondent approached the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow in the year 1988 challenging the said order of termination. The Tribunal held that the said termination is bad, inasmuch as while the private respondent’s services had been terminated after he was permitted to work for a long period of time, services of juniors to him appointed in similar capacity had not been interfered with. Thereby, the Tribunal squarely indicated that the appointment of the petitioner was not on a temporary post. The appointment letter does not suggest that appointment of the respondent was an officiating appointment. That being the situation, the Tribunal impliedly held that by taking recourse to the said Rules, the services of the private respondent could not be terminated. The present writ petition was preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh as far back as in 1997. In the presence of both the parties, the writ petition is being decided finally by us today. In the writ petition nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the private 3 respondent was appointed on a temporary post. Nowhere in the body of the petition, it has been stated that private respondent was appointed on officiating capacity on a permanent post. That being the situation, taking recourse to the said Rules for the purpose of terminating the services of the petitioner was not permissible in law. The product of the said action, being the termination order dated 24.9.1988 is, therefore, illegal per se. The same having been quashed by the Tribunal by its judgment and order challenged in the present writ petition is not interferable. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 28.10.2010 Kuldeep