JUDGMENT S. H. A. Raza, J. - The services of the petitioner, who was appointed as forest guard in the Forest Department, were terminated on 781981 by office order reproduced below: The services of Sri Adya Prasad Pandey temporary forest guard is no more required in the office, hence it is terminated. 2. In para 7 of the counter affidavit it has been averred that the petitioner was a temporary employee of the opposite party No. 1 and his services were liable to termination at any moment without assigning any reason, by giving one month's pay in lieu of notice or with one month's notice, hence his services were dispensed with, allowing him one month's pay. The petitioner, aggrieved against the order of termination, filed a claim petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, mainly on two grounds, firstly, that the services of the petitioner were not terminated in accordance with the Rule 4 of the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975, and secondly, that although the order of termination appears to be innocuous, i. e. termination simpliciter, but the same was camouflaged into an order of punishment. The Tribunal repelled the contention of the petitioner and dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the admitted fact of the case that the petitioner was, admittedly, a temporary servant of the State Government and the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 were applicable to him. Rule 4 of the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 is reproduced as under; 4(1). Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any existing rules or orders on the subject, the services of a Government Servant in temporary service shall be liable to termination at any time by notice in writing given either by the Government Servant to the appointing authority, or by the appointing authority to the Government Servant. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any existing rules or orders on the subject, the services of a Government Servant in temporary service shall be liable to termination at any time by notice in writing given either by the Government Servant to the appointing authority, or by the appointing authority to the Government Servant. (2) The period of notice shall be one month: Provided that the service of any such Government Servant may be terminated forthwith, and on such termination the Government Servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances, if any, for the period of the notice or as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his services: Provided further that it shall be open to the appointing authority to relieve a Government Servant without any notice or accept notice for a shorter period, without requiring the Government servant to pay any penalty in lieu of notice: Provided also that such notice given by the Government Servant against whom a disciplinary proceeding is pending or contemplated shall be effected only if it is accepted by the appointing authority, provided in the case of a contemplated disciplinary proceedings, the Government Servant is informed of the nonacceptance of his notice before the expiry of that notice. 4. Savings Notwithstanding anything in these rules, the tenure or continuance of engagement or employment of the following categories of persons shall be governed by terms of their engagement or employment and nothing in these rules shall be construed to require the giving to them, or by them of one month's notice or pay or penalty in lieu thereof before the termination of their engagement of employment: (a) Persons engaged on contract; (b) persons not in whole time employment of Government; (c) persons paid out of contingencies; (d) persons employed in a work charged establishment; (e) persons reemployed after superannuation; (f) persons employed for a specified period whose services stand determined on the expiry of that period; (g) persons employed for a specified period an condition that the period may be curtailed at any time; (h)persons appointed in short term arrangements or vacancies whose services stand determined on the expiry of the arrangement or vacancy. 5. Rescission and saivng (I). 5. Rescission and saivng (I). The rule promulgated with Appointment (B) Department Notification No. 236/II61953, dated January 30, 1973 shall stand rescinded with effect from the same date. (2) Notwithstanding such rescission, anything done or any action taken or purporting to be done or taken under the said rule stall be deemed to have been done or taken under these rules. 4. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that neither one month's notice was given to the petitioner nor salary in lieu of period of notice was paid to him and hence the order of termination passed by the respondent was non est. 5. A similar question cropped up in the case of Kusum Gupta alias Kusum Bansal v. Haryana State Small Industries and Export Corpn., (1986) 3 SCC, 506 in which the services of Kusum Gupta who was appointed as a clerk in the respondent Corporation on July 25, 1974, were terminated on August 7, 1980 by an Office Order running as follows: The services of Mrs. Kusum Gupta working as Sales Assistant in Haryana Emporium, New Delhi are no longer required by the Corporation with immediate effect. She will be paid one month's pay plus allowances in lieu of notice period. 6. In the case of Kusum Gupta (supra) one month's notice plus allowances in lieu of notice period was never paid to her, The byelaw 3.2 of the Hariyana State Small Industries and Export Corporation provided that the services of the employee of the Corporation might be terminated by the appointing authority; in the case of temporary employees be given one month's notice eitherside or in lieu thereof pay for the period the notice falls short of one month. 7. As the byelaw unambiguously Was clear that her services could be terminated by giving one months' notice or in lieu of notice by paying salary for the period of one month which was never given. Mr. Justice Chinnappa Reddy speaking on behalf of the Bench held as under: It would not be open to the employer to insist upon the production of no dues certificate' by the employee. In fact we fail to see how the employer can insist upon the production of a 'no dues certificate' by the employee when the certificate has to be given by the employer. In fact we fail to see how the employer can insist upon the production of a 'no dues certificate' by the employee when the certificate has to be given by the employer. The employer is the person who is in know of things whether any amount is due from the employee or not. The employer cannot certainly take advantage of his failure to give a certificate to the employee and claim that he was entitled to withhold the one month's pay and allowances payable in lieu of the one month's notice on the ground of nonproduction of no dues certificate by the employee. We have no hesitation in allowing this appeal. The judgment and decree of the High Court are set aside. The judgment and decree of the trial court are restored with costs throughout. 8. Although in the instant case the appointment order has not been produced but it was admitted that the petitioner was a temporary government employee and his services can be terminated by giving one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof as indicated in the rules mentioned above. No notice or salary of one month in lieu thereof was paid to the petitioner. Hence, for want of compliance of the aforesaid rule the order of termination is vitiated. The ratio of the judgment passed above applies to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal has misdirected itself by not appreciating the facts of the case in clear perspective. It has misread and misappreciated the import of the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975, Hence the order deserves to be ignored. 9. In view of what has been indicated above, the writ petition is allowed and a writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 711985 contained iri Artfle%ufe No. 1 and directing the opposite; parties 1 and 2 to treat the petitioner continuing in service and give all benefits as if no termination order was passed.