KHUSHI RAM Vs. ADHISHASHI ABHIYANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri S.U. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to have been appointed by the letter of appointment dated 13th February, 1987 (Annexure -1 to the writ petition) as Nalkoop Operator at Tube -well No. 165 in the district of Mainpuri.

(3.) BY the order dated 25th November, 1991 (Annexure '2' to the writ petition), the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that Tube -well No. 165 on which the petitioner was employed has since been abandoned and is no more functioning. Therefore, the petitioner's service were not required. The termination order also says that the petitioner is being given notice for one month, according to his terms of appointment, and thereafter his services will automatically come to an end. This order was also communicated to the petitioner by the Ziledar of the area concerned.