State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Umesh Chandra Joshi and anr.

service - termination of temporary employee - writ filed against tribunal' s order of setting aside termination - respondent alleging that notice was not given before termination - respondent is temporary employee - no obligation to issue notice - temporary employees are not entitled to post as a matter of right - no proof with respondent that he is regular employee - termination order valid and tribunal's order liable to be set aside. - m. katju, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. this writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the u. p. public service tribunal dated 2.2.1993. the respondent no. 1 was a purely temporary employee. it is settled law that a temporary employee has no right to the post. there is nothing to show that the respondent no. 1 was regular appointee appointed after a regular selection. hence, he cannot, claim to be continued in service.3. learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent no. 1 was not given a written order of termination, and thiswas one of the grounds given by the tribunal for allowing the claim petition. we are of the opinion that a termination order can be oral, particularly in respect of temporary/ casual or ad hoc employees. learned counsel for the respondent then submitted that one month's notice pay was not given. it is settled law that even if one month's notice or notice pay was not given, the termination order would not become illegal on that account.4. for these reasons, we set aside the impugned order of the tribunal dated 2.2.1993. the petition is allowed. no order as to costs.5. however, we direct that the respondent no. 1 should be given one month's salary in lieu of notice of termination.