ANIL KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with their consent, the writ petition was heard finally.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged an order dated 10 June 2010 passed by the fourth respondent by which, his services on the post of Lekhpal had been terminated treating it to be temporary, by taking recourse to the provisions of the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (The Rules 1975) and has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat him to be in continuous service and pay his salary on month to month basis.

(3.) The background facts, as stated in the impugned order dated 10 June 2010, reveals that the petitioner was appointed as a Lekhpal on temporary basis by an order of the then Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sardhana, Meerut dated 14 June 1990. The appointment letter has not been brought on record. However, the nature of appointment is evident from a communication dated 24 May 1990 by Senior Administrative Officer, Meerut, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Lekhpal is on temporary basis. It is not in dispute between the parties that the aforesaid appointment was given to the petitioner by extending him the benefit of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974(Dying in Harness Rules) consequent to the death of his father Sri Jayanti Prasad Jain, who was also working on the post of Lekhpal.