Appointments under the Dying in Harness Rules are to be treated as permanent, entitling the employee to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.

( 1 ) THE present Special Appeal has been filed by Yogendra Ram Chaurasiya against the judgment and order dated 5. 5. 1997 passed by the learned Single judge, where the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition of the appellant on the ground that the appellant-writ petitioner was purely a temporary employee and even for the short period he was under employment there was several complaint against him as is evident from the perusal of annexures CA 1 to CA 7 to the counter affidavit.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated facts giving rise to the present case are that the father of the appellant- writ petitioner late Telhu baryee was working as a Lasker of 92 u. P. Battalion, N. C. C. at Ghazipur. He died while he was in service. The appellant writ petitioner being his son was given appointment on compassionate ground. The appellant was given appointment on 30. 4. 1994. It was mentioned in the appointment order that his appointment would be temporary subject to the termination under U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules 1976. The appellant- writ petitioner accepted the said appointment and consequently he was posted as a Lasker of 92 UP battalion, N. C. C. at Ghazipur. It appears that there was certain complaint against him for which warning was also issued and subsequently, vide order dated 23. 3. 1995, his services were terminated under the provisions of U. P. Temporary government Servants (Termination of service) Rules 1975, while giving him amount equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowance for the period of notice of one calendar month. The appellant writ petitioner challenged his termination order dated 23. 5. 1995 in the writ petition which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order under appeal.

( 3 ) WE have heard Sri Prakash Padia learned counsel for the appellant and Sri ravi Prakash Srivastava learned standing counsel for the respondents.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appointment of the appellant was made on compassionate grounds under the provisions of Dying in harness Rules, which appointment cannot be treated as temporary appointment and rather it was permanent appointment and, therefore, the services could not have been terminated under the provisions U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules 1975. He relied upon the decision in the case of ravi Karan Singh vs. State of U. P. and others reported in 1991 (1) ALR 754. He further submitted that since the appointment of the appellant- writ petitioner is to be a permanent appointment, his services could have been terminated only after complying with the provisions of Article 311 of the constitution of India viz. after issuing charge sheet, holding enquiry and giving opportunity to defend his case. In the alternative, he submitted that even if the appointment of the appellant writ petitioner is taken to be a temporary appointment since the enquiry was pending against him, and the order of termination had been passed in the wake of such an enquiry, the order of termination is not simplicitor but casts stigma and, therefore, it was necessary for holding a full-fledged enquiry in which opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioner, and this having not been done, the impugned order is illegal.

( 5 ) THE learned standing counsel, however, submitted that the appellant writ petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis as would be clear from the appointment letter itself and such terms and conditions of the appointment letter was accepted by the appellant- writ petitioner hence he is estopped from contending that his appointment was not a temporary appointment but a permanent one. He submitted that the appellant is not entitled for the protection of constitutional safe guards as provided under Article 311 of the constitution of India. He also submitted that the services of the appellant- writ petitioners had been terminated