ORDER M.L. Bhat. J.
1. The petitioner's services have been terminated by an order dated June 16, 1990 and he has been asked to hand over charge by another order dated June 21, 1990. Both these orders are impugned in this writ petition.
2. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as a Junior clerk on daily wage basis by the respondent No. 3 vide an appointment letter dated August 1, 1989. The petitioner is said to have joined on August 3, 1989 and since then he had worked upto June 21, 1990. He contends that his work was satisfactory. He was not paid salary from December, 1989 till his services were terminated in June, 1990. He says that he has worked for 240 days. He is said to have made a request to the respondents to regularise his services but instead of regularising his services, his services were terminated. The order of termination is challenged as being bad because no notice was given to him nor were the provisions of Section 25-F of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act complied with. However, some Junior clerks appointed on daily wage basis have been granted relief by the Court. The petitioner claims payment of salary also from the month of December, 1989 onwards.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case. It appears that the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis with a condition that his services would be liable to termination without any notice. The impugned order, contained in Annexure 15 to the writ petition, shows that his services have been terminated with effect form August 1, 1989 (sic) (June 16, 1990). The order of termination does not cast any stigma on the petitioner. The said order does not appear to be punitive also.
4. The appointment letter, on which the petitioner relies, has a condition that the petitioner's services can be terminated any time without prior notice. His services have been terminated on the basis of the conditions contained in the appointment letter. After termination of his services he is bound to hand over the charge, which order is contained in Annuexure 16 to the writ petition. The two orders do not suffer from any infirmity. The appointment letter of the petitioner shows that he has not attained any vested right to hold the post. It was a temporary arrangement, which ceased to be effective in terms of the condition given in the appointment letter.
5. The Petitioner has relied on some judgment given by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Gyan Prakash v. State of U.P., on April 11, 1990. In the said judgment the respondents were directed to consider the regularisation and absorption of some employees, who had filed the writ petition. The employees in that case were in continuous service with the respondents. Therefore, the respondents were directed to consider their regularisation. That judgment would not apply to the facts of the present case because the petitioner's services stand already terminated and the termination order, as stated above, is not punitive in nature and does not suffer from any infirmity. Therefore, no direction can be issued in this writ petition for the regularisation of the petitioner's services because he does not continue to be in service with effect from June 16, 1990.
6. However, if the petitioner has rendered some work upto June, 1990 and wages have not been paid to him, he may make an application to the respondents for payment of salary from December, 1989 to June, 1990 for the work done by him. After verifying the correctness of the representation the respondents shall pay to the petitioner such wages which he was drawing under the rules for the work which is rendered by him. If any representation is made by the petitioner, the same shall be decided by the respondents within two months from the date of presentation of the representation and the communication of a certified copy of this order to the respondents by the petitioner.
7. The petitioner's claim that no notice under Section 25-F of the U.P Industrial Disputes Act was given to him before his services were terminated is also misplaced, because the provisions of the Section would not be attracted to the present case.
8. With the observations made hereinabove this petition stands dismissed in limine. However, there will be no order as to costs.