R. H. ZAIDI, J. Heard learned coun sel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. 2. By means of this petition, petitioner challenges the order of termination dated 6-11-1985. 3. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as class IVth employee in the year 1965 in temporary capacity in the Juvenile Court at Varanasi. Ultimately he was transferred from Varanasi to Social Welfare Scheme. It was on 15-5-82 that the petitioner was promoted to the class III post, as it is evident from the order of promotion contained in Annexure II to the rejoinder affidavit as well as Annexure III to the writ petition, which is the relieving order. Thereafter, without assigning any reason and without affording any oppor tunity to the petitioner, the impugned order of termination has been passed on 6-11 -85. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has put in about 20 years service in the department, therefore, respondent No. 1 had no jurisdic tion to terminate his service without follow ing the procedure prescribed under law. In the meanwhile, petitioner was also promoted from class IV to the class HI post. His services there after, shall be deemed to have been regularised. Therefore the order of termination is liable to be quashed. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on be half of the respondents, the facts stated in the writ petition have not been controve rted. The fact and date of promotion, of the petitioner, as stated above, has been ad mitted in para 9 of the counter affidavit; but it has been stated that the work and conduct of the petitioner was not found satisfactory as such his services have been terminated. 6. If the facts a stated in the counter affidavit are accepted, the order of termina tion shall become the order of punishment and the same could not be passed without following the procedure prescribed under the rules. In any view of the matter and particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner has served the department for 20 years, it was not open to the respondents to terminate the service of the petitioner un ceremoniously and without following the procedure prescribed under law. 7. In any view of the matter and particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner has served the department for 20 years, it was not open to the respondents to terminate the service of the petitioner un ceremoniously and without following the procedure prescribed under law. 7. A reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4924/85 Kumari Kumkum Dey v. State of U. P, decided on 1-2-1995, wherein the similar circumstances, it was observed by the Supreme Court as under: "it is thus obvious that the appellant has been continuously in service for almost 15 years and as such it would be traversity of justice if she is thrown out of service after having served the Govt. for such a long period. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and direct that the appellant shall be con sidered to be in regular service of the State Govt. " 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the order of termination of the peti tioner dt. 6-11-1985 is liable to be quashed. 9. The writ petition suceeds and is al lowed. The order of termination of the peti tioner dated 6-11-1985 is here by quashed and respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post, which he was holding at the time of his termination. They are also directed to pay his salary and treat him in regular service of the State Govern ment. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. .