Hon’ble Siddharth, J.—Heard Sri Rajiv Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Indra Bhan Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed the above noted writ petition, praying for quashing of the order dated 17.12.1992, passed by the respondent No. 1, whereby, his services on the post of temporarily welfare worker were terminated.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Kalyan Karta on 10.1.1986 by the respondent No. 1, Director, Solders’ Welfare and Rehabilitation, U.P. Sainik Bhavan, Lucknow, under the respondent No. 2, District Solders’ Welfare and Rehabilitation Officer, Muzaffarnagar. The appointment of the petitioner was temporary and the period of probation was 2 years. It was further provided that after completing 2 years of probation his services, he would be temporarily appointed on the aforesaid post. His appointment was in the pay scale and the other allowances payable to the temporary employees were payable to him. The post held by the petitioner was made permanent by the order dated 1.5.1990 of the State Government and the petitioner continued to work on the same and the respondent No. 2 recommended his promotion. However by the impugned order dated 17.12.92, his services were terminated relying upon the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 with one month notice and pay.

4. The petitioner filed the above noted writ petition challenging his termination order and the operation of the impugned termination order dated 17.12.1992 was stayed by this Court on 25.2.1993.

5. The petitioner has amended the writ petition and has brought on record the fact that he has retired on 31.7.2005 and his entire post retirement dues have been withheld by the respondent No. 1 because of the pendency of the writ petition.

6. The respondents filed their Counter-affidavit dated 25.3.2004 stating that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of approaching the U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow against the termination order dated 17.12.1992, instead of filing this writ petition. The services of the petitioner were rightly terminated under the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. The petitioner’s services were terminated because he sold wooden logs of trees of about Rs. 2 lacs without authority by the letter dated 15.10.1992, the District Magistrate has recommended termination of services of the petitioner for being involved in theft and sale of woods of public trees in collusion with 2 employees.

7. The petitioner has filed his Rejoinder-affidavit stating that the respondents have made false averments in the Counter-affidavit.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per the terms of appointment in the appointment letter dated 10.2.1986, on record, it was specifically provided that in case, the petitioner successfully completes the two years period of probation, he will be temporarily appointed on his post and shall be treated as temporary employee of the State Government in all respects. He has further argued that by the Government Order dated 10.5.1990, all the temporary posts in the District Solders’ Welfare & Rehabilitation Offices were made permanent w.e.f., 1.5.1990 and therefore, the temporary post held by the petitioner became permanent and his appointment also became permanent on the permanent post. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that as per Rule-1(3) of the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975, the rule applies to such employees who do not hold a lien on permanent post under the Government of U.P. In the present case, the petitioner was holding a lien on the permanent post after the post became permanent w.e.f., 1.5.1990, as per the Government Order dated 10.5.1990. The final submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the services of the petitioner were not terminated on the ground