In this petition the petitioner has assailed the order of his retrenchment from the post of office peon, which was passed by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Gauhati on 15th November, 1979 vide Annexure *D' to the petition. We quote below the said order : “Order :— Shri Gunakher Sarma who was appointed as personal peon (Attached to Shri D. Nath, Academic Officer) on purely temporary basis vide Orders No. SEBA/EST/12/75/1093-85 dated 30.6.75 against the post sanctioned vide Administration Committee's resolution No. 6 dated 9.9.75 and approved by the…. We have heard Mr. Malakar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Goswami, the learned counsel for the respondents. The first contention of Mr. Goswami is that the Board has got absolute power to abolish any post and in support of his contention Mr. Goswami has placed reliance in K. Rajendran and others vs State of Tamil Nadu and otbers, (19821 2 S. C. C. 273. The law on this point is settled as held by the Apex Court that abolition of post may have the effect of termination of Government service and such termination is not dismissal or removal within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. But in the case in hand though the post was abolished by the order dated 13.10.77, by the said order the Board also decided to absorb the then existing incumbents including the petitioner as office peon. The second contention of Mr. Goswami is that as from the appointment letter dated 30th June, 1977 (Annexure-A) the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis, the termination of his service will hot attract the provisions “of Article' 1311 of the Constitution of India and in support of that Mr. Goswami has placed reliance in Oil and Natural Gas Commission and others vs. Dr. Md. S. Iskender AH (1980 3 S. C. C. 428 and Commodors Commanding Southern Naval Area, Cochin vs. V. N. Rajan (1981) 2 S. C. C. 636. In the case in-hand the question is not of removal of a temporary person but whether the petitioner can be retrenched in view of the circumstances stated in the petition and as such, we are of the opinion that the above decisions on which Mr. Goswami has placed reliance are of no help to us. In the case in-hand the question is not of removal of a temporary person but whether the petitioner can be retrenched in view of the circumstances stated in the petition and as such, we are of the opinion that the above decisions on which Mr. Goswami has placed reliance are of no help to us. From the termination order dated 15th November, 1979 we find that the Secretary of the Board retrenched the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis. As toe petitioner was appointed to toe post of office peon which appears to us to be substantive post, we fail to understand how the question of retrenchment arise in such a case. In the counter challenge made is that the petitioner, after the post of personal peon was abolished, was appointed as a casual employee but this is contrary to the order passed-on 3Oth October, 1977 vide Annexure 'B' where it was clearly stated that the existing incumbents including the petitioner were absorbed as office peon. This order clearly shows that the petitioner was appointed as an. office peon and was not appointed. AS a casual employee. As the petitioner was not a casual employee, the question of his retrenchment cannot arise. Moreover, the post of Office peon to which the petitioner was appointed was not abolished. From what have been stated above, we are unable to accept the submissions put forward by Mr. Goswami and we are of the opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the petitioner was holding a substantive post and was not appointed as a casual employee and as such the retrenchment is bad in law . In the result, the impugned order dated 15th November, 1979 vide-Annexure 'D' to the petition is set aside. We direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner, forthwith and to pay him all back wages from 16th November, 1979 In the result, the petition is allowed with cost which is quantified at Rs. 250/-.