JUDGMENT

S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J.:- This appeal is filed by the appellant Triveni Shankar Saxena questioning the correctness of the judgment dated 23-8-1982 rendered by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ Petn. No. 226 of 1980 allowing the said Writ Petition and quashing the order of the Uttar Pradesh Services Tribunal dated 6-10-1979. A few facts of the case as set out in Suit No. 367/ 74 filed before the Court of the Civil Judge, Moradabad may be stated:

The appellant was appointed as a Lekhpal by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Moradabad on 6-4-1953 at the circle of Village Tilokpur, Pargana in Moradabad District, which post he held from 6-4-53 to 12-3-54 at Tilokpur and thereafter from 13-3-54 to 15-11-54 in Village Thonda in Tehsil Moradabad.

2. In the wake of consolidation proceedings in the State of U.P., the appellant Was selected as a Consolidator on 5-11-1954, and was sent for training as a Consolidator at Rampur Training College, which hejoined on 16-11-1954 and after completing the training he again joined his original posting on 12-2-55.

3. On 24-3-55 the appellant was appointed as a Consolidator in Sah;iranpur by the Commission of Consolidation, U. Pt Government, Lucknow through the S.D.M. "doradabad and was relieved and sent on deputation. As a Consolidator the appellant was transferred from place to place in the normal course. He was transferred from Pilibhit on promotion as an Assistant Consolidation Officer (for short A.C.O.) at Azamgarh on 7-6-1967 and thereafter to Agra and to Lakhimpur. He was once again posted in Azamgarh as A.C.O. While it was so, the appellant received the order of termination of his services on 16-10-1971 from the Consolidation Commissioner, which order did not assign any reason. His case is that he was on deputation. According to the appellant, the only course left open to the Consolidation Commissioner was to revert him back to his substantive post, namely, Lekhpal, to which he was having a lien in the District of Moradabad and that he was not given any opportunity of representing his case and was not served with any memo of charge for terminating him though he had put in 19 years of service without a break and that the order of termination is bad in law as being violative of Rules 14-A and 14-B of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules contained in Part II of the Financial Handbook Volume II.

4. Being aggrieved by the order of termination (simpliciter), the appellant served a notice under Section 80, C.P.C. upon the Government and thereafter filed a Civil Suit No. 367 of 1974 in the court of Civil Judge, Moradabad to declare that the order of termination dated 16-10-71 passed by the Commissioner of Consolidation was illegal, void and ineffective and the appellant, having been on deputation, was entitled to his original substantive post with full emoluments.

5. The claim of the appellant, was denied by the first respondent (State of U.P.) inter alia submitting that the appointment of the appellant as Consolidator and thereafter as A.C.O. was quite temporary, that the services of the appellant were terminated only under the rules after paying one months salary, that the claim of the appellant is not justifiable. Further, the case of the respondents is that the appellant held the post of Lekhpal in an officiating capacity and not in substantive capacity, that thereafter he applied for the post of Consolidator for which he was selected and posted on temporary basis and that he had no lien on the post of Lekhpal at the time of his appointment as Consolidator in the Department of Consolidation.

6. While the suit was pending before the Civil Court, the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Ordinance came into force and hence it was transferred to the U. P. Public Services Tribunal No.1, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). Before the Tribunal an affidavit, counter and rejoinder affidavits were filed by the parties in support of their respective cases. The Tribunal for the rea