http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: INDRA KUMAR CHOPRA ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PRADESHIK CO. OPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD. ANDORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/08/1992

BENCH: YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J) BENCH: YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J) SHARMA, L.M. (J) PUNCHHI, M.M.

CITATION:  1992 AIR 2093            1992 SCR  (3) 755  1992 SCC  (4)  17        JT 1992 (4)   459  1992 SCALE  (2)125

ACT:      Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965- Sections 122-A  and  122-U.P. Cooperative Dairy Federation  and  Milk Union Centralised Service Rules 1984-Rule 17(1) and (3)-U.P. Cooperative  Societies Employees Service  Regulations  1975- Para  17,  18,  19-Termination  of  provisionally   absorbed employee  appointed to a temporary post upon creation  of  a new   service-Held,  the  post  not  being   regular   under Regulation  17(1),  and  his status before  he  became  such absorbed employee not being relevant, termination valid.

HEADNOTE:      On   29  August,  1984,  the  U.P.  Cooperative   Dairy Federation  and  Milk Union Centralised Service  Rules  1984 were  promulgated which created a new service known as  U.P. Cooperative and Dairy Federation and Milk Unions Centralised Service which was to consist of all the managerial posts  of the Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd., Lucknow and the  Cooperative  Milk Unions and  Cooperative  Milk  Boards within  the Operation Flood II Project registered under  the 1965  Act,  with some exceptions.  By  Resolution  dated  28 September, 1984, the 1975 Regulations were made  applicable, and  the  rules  relating  to  probation,  confirmation  and termination  were  extended  to the  employees  in  the  new service.      The  appellant  was  appointed  as  Assistant   Manager (Quality  Control) in the Cattle Feed Plant, Varanasi on  24 July, 1981 and placed on probation for a period of one year.      On  30  May,  1987  and 25  May,  1987,  the  appellant received  orders, by the first of which he was  relieved  by the  Dugadh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd., Agra, where  he  was then posted, and was to report at the Pradeshik  Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd., Head Office at the earliest.  By  the second  order, his services were terminated under  Paras  17 (1) and 19 (A) of the 1975 Regulations by giving one month’s salary.  The appellant                                                   756 challenged  the  orders mainly on the ground that he  was  a permanent  employee having been finally absorbed in  service holding a regular post since 1981, in a clear vacancy  after

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

due selection.      The   High   Court,  on  consideration  of   the   1975 Regulations, the 1984 Rules, the appointment orders and  the facts  of  the case, held that the  appellant  continued  in service  as a temporary employee, and that the  services  of the appellant with the Federation had no relevance.      Dismissing the appeal, this Court,      HELD:  1.  By Explanation to Regulation 17(1)  no  post shall  be  deemed to be regular unless it  is  in  existence continuously  for the last five years.  The post of  Manager Grade  III  had been sanctioned only with  effect  from  the coming into force of the 1984 Rules. [766G]      Till the date of termination of the appellant’s service even three years had not expired.  Therefore the post  which he  was  holding could not be deemed to be a  regular  post. [766H]      2.  The  status  of an employee  before  he  became  an employee  of  the Centralised Service created  by  the  1984 Rules,  his terms and conditions were to be governed by  the 1975  Regulations  and he had to become a  regular  employee once  again.  Having become an employee of the new  service, and  since  the post was not in existence  continuously  for five  years,  it  could not be treated as  a  regular  post. Consequently  the  services of the appellant is  that  of  a temporary employee. [767A-C]      Om  Prakash  Maurya  v.  Cooperative  Sugar   Factories Federation, Lucknow, [1986] Supp SCC 95, referred to.      3.  In  view of Section 122-A of the 1965 Act  and  the creation of the new Service under different Authority by the 1984  Rules and the provisions of Regulation 17 of the  1975 Regulations,  the  appellant had no choice but to  take  his chance with the new authority. [767D]      4.  Though the impugned order of termination  does  not cast any stigma on the appellant which can be called by  way of  punishment, in the counter-affidavit it was stated  that his work was unsatisfactory. [767E] National Textile Workers Union & Ors. v. P.R. Ramakrishnan & Ors.,                                                   757 [1983]  1  SCC  228. The Govt. Branch Press  &  Ors.  v.D.B. Beliappa,  [1979] 2 S.C.R. 458 = A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 429;  Ajit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., [1983] 2 S.C.R.  517 Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India & Anr., [1984] 2 S.C.C. 369, distinguished.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.  3321 and 3320 of 1990. From the Judgment and Order dated 21.7.1989 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. No. 3845 and 4371 of 1987.      M.S. Ganesh and S. Murlidhar for the Appellants.      K.T.S.  Tulsi, Addl. Solicitor General,  Pradeep  Misra and Arun Sharma for the Respondents      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J. Civil Appeal 3321 of 1990 and Civil Appeal  3320 of 1990 arise out of a common judgment  of  the Allahabad  High Court dated 21st July, 1989  passed in  Writ Petition  No.  3845 of 1987:Indra Kumar Chopra v.  State  of U.P. and others and Writ Petition No. 4371 of 1987:  Ashwani Kumar  Jha v. Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy  Federation  Ltd., and another.      As the common questions of facts and law arise in  both the  appeals,  the same are being disposed of  by  a  common

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

judgment.   For facility of reference we may deal  with  the facts of the appeal of Indra Kumar Chopra.      The  appellant,  claiming  himself to  be  a  permanent employee-Manager  Grade-III  (Quality  Control)  posted   at Dugadh  Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited Agra,  had  challenged the  orders dated 30th May, 1985 and 25th May, 1987,  passed by  the General Manager, Dugadh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh,  Agra and Chairman Administrative Committee of the said Sangh.  By the first order the appellant was relieved by the said Sangh in  the  afternoon  of 30th   May, 1985  and  to  report  at Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd., Head Office, at the  earliest  and  by the second order  his  services  were terminated under Paras 17(1) and 19(A) of the Uttar  Pradesh Cooperative  Societies Employees Service  Regulations,  1975 (hereinafter  called ‘the 1975 Regulations’) by  giving  one month’s salary in lieu of notice period.                                                   758      The orders were impugned mainly on the ground that  the appellant  was a permanent  employee  having  been   finally absorbed in service holding a regular post since 1981, in  a clear vacancy after due selection, hence his services  could not be terminated without following the due process of  law. It was submitted before the High Court that the  Regulations under  which the services of the appellant  were  terminated would  not  apply in the case of the appellant as  the  same apply  to the employee on probation.  On July 24, 1981,  the appellant  was  appointed  as  Assistant  Manager   (Quality Control)  in the Cattle Feed Plant, Varanasi and was  placed on probation for a period of one year after his joining.  It was  pleaded that it was mentioned in the order that on  the expiry  of the probation he will be confirmed  provided  the period  of probation is not extended by the  Federation,  at its discretion without assigning any reason thereof:  It was alleged that he was appointed on one year’s probation  which was not extended and was satisfactorily concluded.      On  29th  August, 1984 the Governor  of  Uttar  Pradesh issued   a  Notification  promulgating  the  Uttar   Pradesh Cooperative  Dairy  Federation and  Milk  Union  Centralised Service  Rules, 1984 (hereinafter called ‘the 1984  Rules’). Rule 17(1) of the 1984 Rules provides as follows:-          "The employees of the Federation or Unions  working          on the managerial posts on the date of  enforcement          of these rules shall provisionally be deemed to  be          members of the service."                Rule 17(3) of the 1984 Rules reads thus:          "The  Committee  shall  screen  such  provisionally          absorbed  employees......in  accordance  with   the          qualifications   and   norms  laid  down   by   the          Registrar.   If, as a result of such  screening,  a          provisionally   absorbed  employee  is  not   found          suitable for final absorption in the service by the          Committee,  his service in the Federation or  Union          concerned, as the case may be, shall be  determined          with effect from the date of communication of  such          decision of the Committee."      The  appellant  contended  that  as  a  result  of  the screening,  the  appellant  was  finally  absorbed  in   the service.      Rule  19  of  the 1984 Rules makes  provision  for  the training of the                                                   759 members  of the service.  The appellant alleged  that  after absorption  he was sent for training at Government  expenses which   he  completed  successfully.   The  appellant   also contended that his work, conduct and performance was  always

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

appreciated  by superiors, as a result of which he was  sent as  Manager Grade-III to Dugadh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh  Ltd., Agra.  While he was posted at Agra, he received the impugned orders.      To  the writ petition a detailed counter  affidavit was filed  on  behalf  of respondent Nos. 2 and 3,  by  one  Sh. Sharad  Tondan, who was Manager Grade-III in the  office  of the  Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd., 29 -  Park Road, Lucknow.  In this counter- affidavit the background of the Service has been given.  It was stated thus:          "A. That the Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation          Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as Federation) is an          apex  level  Cooperative  Society  under  the  U.P.          Cooperative Societies Act, 1965.          B. That the Federation has been entrusted with  the          implementation of the Operation Flood Scheme by the          State  Government.   The  Scheme  is  sponsored  by          National  Dairy  Corporation, the  purpose  of  the          scheme  is to procure milk from rural areas of  the          State  and  market the milk and  milk  products  in          urban areas. In all, 28 districts have been covered          under Operation Flood II scheme in three phased the          various milk unions have been established in  these          districts  will have separate identity  but  worked          under  the guidance of the Federation which  is  an          agency for implementing the scheme.          C.  That in the initial stage of member of  persons          working  in the Federation and several milk  unions          were engaged in implementing the scheme.  But later          on  the centralised services were created under the          Centralised  Services Rules and the persons working          on the Managerial post under the Federation and the          milk  unions were given option for becoming  member          of  the  service  by  way  of  appointing   through          absorption.          E. That Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Dairy  Federation          and  Milk  Unions Centralised Service  Rules,  1984          (hereinafter  referred  to as ‘Rules’)  inter  alia          provide for the creation of Cadre                                                   760          Authority and Administrative Committee and  created          Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Dairy Federation and Milk          Union Centralised Service (hereinafter referred  to          as ‘Service’)          F. That the Centralised Services as created by  the          Rules  1984 consists of the following posts,  their          category and their scales in the ascending order.          1. Manager Grade IV          2. Manager Grade III          3. Manager Grade II          4. Manager Grade I          5. General Manager          G.  That after creation of the centralised  service          under the rules for implementation of the Operation          Flood  Scheme,  the  managerial  posts  under   the          Federation  were abolished and the persons  working          on  the  managerial  posts in the  service  of  the          Federation were given option or their absorption in          the   centralised  service  which  is  a  new   and          different services with that of services under  the          Federation.          H. That under Rule 17 of the Rules the persons were          given  option  to  give notice in  writing  to  the          Secretary of the Committee for their non-absorption          into  the services under the  centralised  services

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

        and the provisions were also made for determination          of  the  services of the employees  who  has  given          option  for not becoming a member of  the  services          and the persons who had given option for becoming a          member  of  the service were absorbed  after  found          suitable  by  the Screening Committee and  in  case          they  are not found suitable, there  services  were          liable to termination.  The provision for  training          of the members of the service were also made in the          Rules.          1.  Thus after framing of the  centralised  service          Rules  in the year 1984, for implementation of  the          Operation   Flood-II  Scheme  which  in  itself   a          temporary scheme, a number of                                                   761          temporary  posts of Manager Grade III were  created          and the persons who were previously working in  the          Federation or in the unions on the managerial posts          were appointed by way of absorption on those  posts          under  the appointing authority of Chairman of  the          Administrative Committee.  It is further stated the          service  under  the Cadre Authority  are  different          with  that of service under the federation  or  the          Unions.   It is a new services under the  different          appointing  authority  under  different  terms   of          service  conditions.   It is  further  stated  that          either  there was no post of Manager  Grade-III  in          the   Federation   and  in  the   Union.    It   is          specifically  stated  that the  service  under  the          Federation has no like whatsoever with that of  the          services under the Cadre Authority.          J. That the Centralised Service Rules also  provide          for  framing  or  regulation  enumerating   service          conditions  of  the member of the  service  by  the          Cadre  Authority which are still under  process  of          framing.   That in the meantime, the  Committee  by          means of Resolution decided to govern the  services          condition  of  the members in accordance  with  the          U.P. Cooperative Employees Service Regulation under          the power derived from Rule 25."      It  was  further stated that by Resolution  dated  20th September, 1984 the Cadre Authority resolved that during the implementation  of Regulations being farmed under  the  1984 Rules   the  service  conditions  of  the  members  of   the Centralised   Service   shall  be  governed  by   the   1975 Regulations.  It was also stated specifically that the  post of  Manager Grade-III upon which the appellant  was  working was   not  a  regular  post  and  hence  the   question   of confirmation  did  not arise and the appellant  was  only  a temporary employee.  It was further pleaded that the work of the  appellant was not found upto the mark and the same  was found  unsatisfactory by the appointing authority.   It  was further  alleged that on account of unsatisfactory  work  of the answering respondents was put to financial loss and loss of reputation.      The  Division Bench of the High Court on  consideration of  the 1975 Regulations, the 1984 Rules and looking at  the various appointment orders as well as facts of the case took the  view that the appellant continued to remain in  service as a temporary employee and negatived the contentions                                                   762 of  the appellant that as the appellant continued to  remain in service even after the completion of probationary period, he would be deemed to be confirmed on the post which he  was holding.   The  Division Bench also took the view  that  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

service  of  the  appellant  with  the  Federation  had   no relevance  and  all that was concerned was  the  appellant’s service  under  the Cadre Authority as per the  1984  Rules. With  these observations the High Court dismissed  both  the writ petitions.      The  service  conditions  of  the  appellant,  who  was initially  appointed  by  letter dated 24th  July,  1981  as Assistant   Manager   (Quality   Control)   With   Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited, 29 Park Road, Lucknow, were governed by the 1975 Regulations.  The 1975 Regulations have  been  framed under Section 122 of  the  Uttar  Pradesh Cooperative  Societies Act, 1965.  The appellant was  placed on  probation for a period of one year from the date of  his joining  and  would  be confirmed  provided  the  period  of probation  had  not been extended by the Federation  at  its discretion  as per the averments in the writ petition.   The 1984 Rules were promulgated by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh through  the Notification dated 29the August,  1984.   These Rules  were again framed in exercise of powers conferred  by section  122  A of the Uttar Pradesh  Cooperative  Societies Act, 1965, as amended (hereinafter referred to as ‘the  1965 Act’).  Section 122 A of the 1965 Act provides as under:-          122 A. CENTRALISATION OF CERTAIN SERVICE-          (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,          the  State Government may by rules provide  for the          creation of one more services of such employees  of          such cooperative societies or class of  cooperative          societies  as the State Government may  think  fit,          common to such cooperative societies and prescribed          the method of recruitment, appointment, removal and          other conditions of service of persons appointed to          any such service.          (2) When any such service is created, all employees          of such societies existing on the date of  creation          of  such  service  on the posts  included  in  such          service, shall be deemed to have been provisionally          absorbed  in the service with effect from the  date          of creation of such service:          Provided  that any such employee may, by notice  in          writing to                                                   763          the  prescribed  authority  within  the  prescribed          period,  intimate  his  option of  not  becoming  a          member  of  such  service, and in  that  event  his          service in the society shall stand determined  with          effect from the date of such notice and he shall be          entitled  to  compensation from the  society  which          shall be-          (a)  in  the case of a permanent  employee,  a  sum          equivalent to his salary (including all allowances)          for  a period of three months or for the  remaining          period of his service, whichever is less;          (b)  in  the case of a temporary  employee,  a  sum          equivalent to his salary (including all allowances)          for  a  period of one month or  for  the  remaining          period of his service, whichever is less.          (3)  An employee provisionally absorbed under  sub-          section (2) may be absorbed finally in the  service          if  found  suitable after screening  in  accordance          with the instructions issued by the Registrar;  and          the  services of any such employee as is not  found          suitable for absorption in the service shall  stand          determined  with effect from the date of  issue  of          orders  in that behalf by the prescribed  authority          and until such authority prescribed by the  officer

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

        specified  by the Registrar in that behalf in  such          instructions   and   he  shall   be   entitled   to          compensation  as laid down in clause (a) or  clause          (b)  of  sub-section  (2) according  as  he  was  a          permanent or a temporary employee."      As stated earlier, in exercise of the powers  conferred by  Section  122  A of the 1965 Act the  Governor  of  Uttar Pradesh  was  pleased to make the 1984 Rules.   These  Rules were  notified by Notification dated 29th August,  1984  and came  into  force from the same date.  By  virtue  of  these Rules  a  new Service, known as  Uttar  Pradesh  Cooperative Dairy  Federation and Milk Unions Centralised  Service,  was created which was to consist of all the managerial posts  of the  Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation  Ltd.,  Lucknow, (including  all its Units) and the Cooperative  Milk  Unions and  Cooperative  Milk  Boards falling within  the  area  of Operation  Flood II project, registered under the 1965  Act, except  the  posts of Managing  Director,  Chief  Commercial Manager  and  Chief General Manager of the  Federation  Rule 2(k)  of the 1984 Rules defines -"Service" means  the  Uttar Pradesh  Co-operative  Dairy  Federation  and  Milk   Unions Centralised  Service  created under rule 3 of  these  Rules. Apart from the provisions of                                                   764 Section  122 A of the 1965 Act quoted earlier Section  17(1) of  the 1984 Rules also provided that the employees  of  the Federation or Unions working on the managerial posts on  the date  of enforcement of these Rules shall  provisionally  be deemed  to  be members of the Service created  by  the  1984 Rules.  Sub-rule (2) thereof gave an option to the employees who  have  been  included in the  Service  provisionally  to intimate for not becoming the member of the  Service and  in that  case his service shall be determined with effect  from the  date of such notice and on such determination, in  case he  was  a permanent employee, he would be entitled  to  the salary  for  a period of three months or for  the  remaining period  of service, whichever is less and in the case  of  a temporary  employee he would be entitled to only one month’s salary  or remaining period of service, whichever  is  less. Sub-rule  (3)  of  Rule 17 of the 1984  Rules  provides  for screening  of  provisonally  absorbed  employee  for   final absorption  in the Service by the Committee.  Rule 9 of  the 1984  Rules  contemplated the Authority under the  Rules  to frame   regulations   relating  to   recruitment,  training, employments  etc.  and other conditions of  service  of  the members.  Rule 25 of the 1984 Rules provides as follows:-          "25  (1) So long as the regulations referred to  in          sub- rule (1) of rule 9 are not framed, all or  any          matters  referred to therein for which there is  no          other  specific  provision in the rules,  shall  be          governed  by  such orders or directions as  may  be          issued  by the Authority with the approval  of  the          Registrar.          (2) Any matter not covered by these rules shall  be          governed by such directions as may be issued by the          Authority with the approval of the Government."      As mentioned earlier the Cadre Authority by means of  a Resolution dated 28th September, 1984 had resolved that  the service  conditions  of  the members of the  Service  to  be governed  by the 1975 Regulations till the  new  Regulations are framed under the 1984 Rules.      It  is  clear from the counter-affidavit filed  by  the respondents  that  the post of Manager  Grade-III  had  been sanctioned  only with effect from the coming into  force  of the  1984  Rules.   Regulations 17, 18 and 19  of  the  1975

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

Regulations  which  became  applicable  by  virtue  of   the Resolution dated 28th September, 1984 provide as follow:-                                                   765          "17 PROBATION          (i)  All  persons on  appointment  against  regular          vacancies shall be placed on probation for a period          of one year:          Provided  that  the appointing  authority  may,  in          individual cases, extend the period of probation in          writing  by such further period not  exceeding  one          year, as it may deem fit.          Explanation:  No  post shall be deemed  as  regular          unless  it has been in existence  continuously  for          the last five years.          (ii)  If, at any time during or at the end  of  the          period  of  probation  or the  extended  period  of          probation,  it appears to the appointing  authority          that  a  person placed on probation, has  not  made          sufficient  use of the opportunity offered to  him,          or  has otherwise failed to give  satisfaction,  he          may be discharged from service, or reverted to  the          post held by him substantively, if any  immediately          before such appointment          (iii) A person discharged from service during or at          the end of the period of probation or the  extended          period of probation under clause (ii) shall not  be          given  any  compensation  unless,  under  mandatory          provisions of any law applicable to his case, he is          entitled to the same.          18. CONFIRMATION          (i)  Confirmation  of  an employee  shall,  on  the          satisfactory conclusion of the probationary period,          be made by the appointing authority if the post  is          regular one in terms of the preceding regulation.          (ii)  Where  a person holding a post  not  being  a          regular  one, has not been treated as on  probation          in  terms of Regulation No. 17(i), the question  of          confirmation shall not arise.          Explanation:  If doubt arises whether a  particular          post   in  a  particular  cooperative  society   is          ‘regular’ or not and the matter is not  sub-judice,          it  shall be referred to the Board, whose  decision          shall be final.                                                   766          (iii)   Where   the  number  of  posts   on   which          confirmation  has  to  be made are  less  than  the          persons  eligible for the same, confirmation  shall          be  made  on  the basis  of  seniority  subject  to          rejection of the unfit.          19.  TERMINATION-Services of an employees shall  be          terminable:-          (a) In case of a temporary employee, on one month’s          notice  in  writing  on either  side,  or  in  lieu          thereof  by  payment of one month’s salary  by  the          party which gives notice:          Provided  that in case of direct appointments  made          for a specific period, it shall not be necessary to          give any notice or any pay in lieu thereof.          Explanation : ‘Specific period’ means stated period          of less than six months.          (b)  by three months’ notice in writing  on  either          side in case of a confirmed employee.          Explanation  :- (1) A notice given by  an  employee          under  Regulation  No.  19 shall be  deemed  to  be          proper only if he remains on duty during the period

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

        of the notice:          Provided  that  the  employee  may  be  allowed  on          request  to avail such portion of earned  leave  as          may  be due to him which shall however  not  exceed          the notice period.          (2) The expression ‘month’ used in this  regulation          shall be a period of thirty days commencing on  the          date  immediately following the date on  which  the          notice   is  received  by  the   employee  or   the          appointing authority, as the case may be."      It  is clear from the Explanation to  Regulation  17(1) that  no post shall be deemed to be regular unless it is  in existence  continuously for the last five years.   Till  the date  of termination of the appellant’s service  even  three years  had  not  expired.   Therefore  the  post  which  the appellant was holding could not be deemed to be the  regular post.  Once the post is not regular, Regulation 17 would not be applicable.  We are, therefore, concerned only                                                   767 with Regulation 19(a) of the 1975 Regulations.      It is clear to us that whatever may be the status of an employee before he became a provisionally absorbed  employee of the service, namely - the Centralised Service created  by the 1984 Rules, his terms and conditions were to be governed by  the  1975  Regulations and he had to  become  a  regular employee  once  again and if he was not  willing,  he  could stay  on with the Federation and Section 122 A of  the  1965 Act  provided the consequences for terminating the  services of  both  regular  as well as  temporary  employees.  Having become  the employee of the new service and since  the  post was not in existence continuously for the last five years of its  creation,  it could not be treated as a  regular  post. Consequently  the  services of the appellant is  that  of  a temporary  employee.  In this view of the matter we  do  not find  it necessary to go into the question of the status  of the appellant while he was working with the Federation  and, therefore,  we have not gone into the applicability  of  the decision  of this Court in the case of Om Prakash Maurya  v. U.P.  Cooperative  Sugar Factories Federation,  Lucknow  and others,  [1986]  Supp SCC 95 which directly deals  with  the interpretation of Regulation 17 of the 1975 Regulations.  In fact  in  view  of Section 122 A of the  1965  Act  and  the creation of the new Service under different Authority by the 1984  Rules and the provisions of Regulation 17 of the  1975 Regulations,  the  appellant had no option but to  take  his chance with the new Authority.  Though the impugned order of termination does not cast any stigma on the appellant  which can  be  called  by  way  of  punishment,  in  the  counter- affidavit,  it  was  stated that the  appellant’s  work  was unsatisfactory. Before us the averments made in the counter- affidavit were not challenged on behalf of the appellants.      The  impugned  order  of termination of  service  as  a temporary employee was challenged on the ground that it  was passed by way of punishment in the written note of arguments and following cases were referred to:      National  Textile  Workers  Union  and  others   v.P.R. Ramakrishnan  and other, [1983] 1 SCC 228; The Govt.  Branch Press and another v. D.B. Belliappa, [1979] 2 SCR 458 =  AIR 1979  SC 429; Ajit Singh and others v. State of  Punjab  and another, [1983] 2 SCR 517 and Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India and another, [1984] 2 SCC 369.      None of these cases are applicable to the facts of  the present case.                                                   768 The  first  case relates to the right of the workman in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

winding  up petition.  The second case was found to  be  the case  of discrimination in the method of  termination.   The third  case  was peculiar to its own facts inasmuch  as  the permanent posts in Improvement Trusts were abolished and the termination  of  the  employees were on  the  basis  of  the abolition  of  these  posts  but  same  posts  were  created thereafter.   The  decision of the last case  was  on  facts found  by this Court as punitive in nature against a  member of an Indian Police Service.      We  are  in complete agreement with the  reasoning  and conclusion  of  the Division Bench of the High  Court.   The appeals  consequently  fail and are  dismissed  without  any order as to costs. U.R.                                       Appeal dismissed.                                                   769