JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - Various employees of Zila Parishad Pilibhit who have either been compulsorily retired or whose services have been terminated have challenged the order as arbitrary and violative of Zila Paiishad service rules. Reason for this extra-ordinary action affecting large number of employees is neither in public interest nor poor performance by any of them. But financial crisis making it impossible for the Parishad to pay its employees which led to passing of resolution, dated 28th March, 1987 by the Administrator to the effect that: (1) those temporary or permanent employees who attained the age of 50 years be retired in accordance with rules, (2) to terminate services of those were temporary, (3) to recommend to State Government to retire those employees who were governed by central rules and had reached the age of 50, (4) And the posts which fell vacant in future may not be filled and the posts falling vacant in pursuance of the resolution may be deemed to be abolished. 2. Issue that arises for consideration, therefore is if resolution which led to impugned action is sustainable in law. Retirement under Rule 53(1) (b) of Zila Parishad Rules 1970 read with Explanation could be without assigning any reason but in public interest. That is the employee must have rendered himself unfit, incompetent or useless. It is associated with employees. It is personal to him. Financial crisis of the Government or a public body or ex-economic difficulty cannot, therefore, furnish material for retiring an employee under this rule. That may well entitle abolition of posts, in good faith. But that is not the resolution. The abolition of post follows retirement and not precedes it. The order of retirement, therefore, being contrary to the rule cannot be upheld. 3. Even the termination orders cannot be maintained. Amongst them one was appointed in 1966, and another in 1973, the third in 1980 and fourth and fifth in 1983 and 1984 respectively. Keeping an employee temporary for 15 or 20 years and then terminate him with one month's notice is both unjust and unfair. It deprives an employee of all benefits of his services. Such action is arbitrary and pernicious. Then they have been terminated not because their work was unsatisfactory but because of financial difficulty. Here again posts are abolished after vacancy occurs due to termination. 4. It deprives an employee of all benefits of his services. Such action is arbitrary and pernicious. Then they have been terminated not because their work was unsatisfactory but because of financial difficulty. Here again posts are abolished after vacancy occurs due to termination. 4. Law apart the stand of Zila Parishad on facts cannot be accepted. It is claimed that since income was not sufficient to meet the expenditure surplus employees were either terminated or retired from service. It is claimed that they had no work to do and were mostly sitting idle. A chart has been filed to establish that due to excess expenditure on establishment as compared to income deficit in each year ran in lakhs. For instance in 1978-79 income is mentioned to be 3,73,735/- and, expenditure at Rs. 5,57,473/-. In 1986 this figure went up as income was assessed at Rs. 8,07,155/- and expenditure at Rs. 11,26,826/-. In break-up figure for 1986-87 it is mentioned that Rs. 4,10,022/- was spent on salary of employees of medical department, Rs. 3,67,289/- was spent on salary of office employees, Rs. 1,62,180/- was spent on salary of realisation staff and Rs. 1,35,542/- was spent on salary of employees of construction department i.e. from total amount of Rs. 11,26,826/- a sum of Rs. 10,75,07 1/- was spent on salaries. However, according to Zila Parishad there were 14 dispensaries in the District out of them two were Allopathic, two were integrated dispensaries, and 8 were Ayurvedic and Unani dispensaries. In Allopathic dispensaries the State Government has posted its own doctors while in the remaining alleged dispensaries doctors of Zila Parishad were posted. It is that Zila Parishad had no funds so it did not provide any medicines and other requirements like cotton etc. in the dispensaries since 1980. It is claimed that the doctors posted in aforesaid dispensaries were doing absolutely no work as Zila Parishad was not provided with basic necessities like medicines etc. It is stated that practically no patient is coming to aforesaid dispensaries, as large number of Primary Health Centres have been established by the Government in rural areas, which are providing better facilities to patients. It is stated that practically no patient is coming to aforesaid dispensaries, as large number of Primary Health Centres have been established by the Government in rural areas, which are providing better facilities to patients. It is further stated that since no taxes have been imposed by Zila Parishad and proposal for circumstances and property taxes has been turned down by the State Government there was no source from which it could raise its revenue and meet the expenditures. And there was no job for tax collectors, therefore, they were surplus and their appointment was bad. None of the reasons disclosed have any merit. For instance the three tax collectors who have been retired were appointed as far back as 1969 and 1970. The deficit has been shown from 1978 and 1979 only. No details have been given about duties of tax collectors. Are they required to collect only taxes or their duties require collection of licence fee etc. as well. Further they have been retired because there was no job for them as Zila Parishad had not imposed any taxes, nor was it permitted to levy circumstances and property taxes. The explanation is not worthy of any reliance as the income of Zila Parishad had gone down right from 1979-80 and it is being run by Administrator since 1977. Yet it appointed a Tax collector on 4th July, 1983, when there were already five Tax collectors working in the office. If fifth tax collector could be appointed in July, 1983 then the explanation offered that there was no job for tax collectors stands self condemned. As regards third set of employees who have been retired one was appointed as cashier in 1966. No attempt has been made to explain as to how a cashier was surplus and whether Zila Parishad can carry on without any cashier. As regards petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 they are ward servants in the Ayurvedic dispensaries. No doctor has been retired nor it is stated that any of the dispensaries, Allopathic or Unani have been closed down. If dispensaries are being maintained then services of persons who had reached age of 50 could under rules be dispensed with by retiring them in public interest only. 5. Why was this extraordinary step taken by the administration? To cover up the inefficiency and to save skin of the officials. If dispensaries are being maintained then services of persons who had reached age of 50 could under rules be dispensed with by retiring them in public interest only. 5. Why was this extraordinary step taken by the administration? To cover up the inefficiency and to save skin of the officials. In September, 1986 the pitiable condition of Zila Parishads nearly all over the State showing down fall in income, poor maintenance and low recovery compelled Government to threat the officials with dire consequences. It was directed that every effort should be made to improve conditions. Since Pilibhit was not mentioned the officials instead of improving their working thought it proper to reduce expenditure by tiring or terminating its employees. The actin s not only legally infirm but it is violative of Government directive to improve economic condition by better and efficient working. From whatever aspect legal or moral, fairness or equitable the action of opposite parties appears to be bad. 6. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders, dated 30th April, 1987 terminating or retiring petitioners are quashed. They shall be deemed to be in service and entitled to the benefits which shall have been available to them. The petitioners are entitled to their costs.