PARITOSH K. MUKHERJEE, J. The petitioner Niyaz Ahmad has moved this writ petition, inter alia, challenging the order of termination dated May 18, 1988 passed by District Magistrate, Basti, which has been set out in Annexure-VI to writ petition. 2. It appears from the said order that the order of termination was passed by invoking the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Asthayee Sarkari Sevak (Seva Samapti) Niyamawali, 1975. 3. Short facts stated in writ petition are as follows : The petitioners father, who was a Peon in the office of District Magistrate, Basti, died during his service period on January 27, 1971. Since there was no other member in the family of the petitioner, getting any income, it became difficult for him and his family to survive. The peti tioner, therefore, applied for being absorbed in the office of District Magis trate, Basti. Ultimately the petitioner was appointed on the post of peon on "leave vacancy", initially on July 11, 1973 and continued to work to the full satisfaction of the officers. The petitioner moved several applications for his services being regularised on his post but respondent No. 2 did not pay any attention to the problems of the petitioner. Ultimately the peti tioner represented to the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur who directed the respondent No. 2 to absorb the petitioner at a regular post because he was the senior most candidates working on non- regular basis. The said direction dated November 19, 1975 is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. According to petitioner, despite direction issued by the Commissioner he was not absorbed by respondent No. 2 and was compelled to continue on non-regular basis. The petitioner made several representa tions before the higher authorities but could not get any result. Copy of such a representation dated May 31, 1986 is contained in Annexure II to the writ petition. 4. It is admitted case that petitioner continued to work as peon from 11-7-1973 to 19-5-1988. In the meantime, however, the petitioner was appointed on the post of peon at the place of one Umadutt Pandey, who retired from service with effect from 31-3-1986. A copy of said appointment letter has been annexed as Annexure-ill to the writ petition. 4. It is admitted case that petitioner continued to work as peon from 11-7-1973 to 19-5-1988. In the meantime, however, the petitioner was appointed on the post of peon at the place of one Umadutt Pandey, who retired from service with effect from 31-3-1986. A copy of said appointment letter has been annexed as Annexure-ill to the writ petition. The petitioner continued to work on his post, but without any rhyme or reason, he was astonished to get the notice, dated May 19, 1988 which was received by him on June 10, 1988 by which his services were terminated. A copy of the impugned order of termination is set out in Annexure-VI to the writ petition. It appears from the notice of termination that petitioners services have been terminated by invoking the provisions of aforesaid 1975 Rules. In the notice it was only indicated that the petitioners services were no longer required by the respondent authorities. 5. Sri D. K. Singh appearing for the petitioner submits that firstly, since the petitioner was appointed in the vacancy of one Umadutt, the petitioners services should be regularised in view of Regularisation Rules, and secondly, since the petitioner was continuing on the post of peon from July 11, 1973 till July 5, 1986 his services cannot be terminated by passing the impugned order which cannot be treated as "termination" simpliciter. " 6. In support of his contention learned counsel petitioner has placed strong reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in tlie case of Government Branch Press v. D. B. Belliappa, AIR 1979 SC 429 wherein the Supreme Court has observed that services of a temporary Government servant cannot be dispensed without invoking provisions of Article 311 of the Con stitution of India. 7. Mr. K. M, Sahay appearing for respondents referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 2 UPLBEC 1387 wherein the Bench consisting of Honble P. B. Sawant and Honble N. P. Singh, JJ. observed that appointment to dependants of deceased employee in public service is an exception to general rules for appointment. Such appointment is given on humanitaring round, in order to give source of livelihood to family of deceased. Death of an employee in harness, does not give his dependent any vested right to get employment. observed that appointment to dependants of deceased employee in public service is an exception to general rules for appointment. Such appointment is given on humanitaring round, in order to give source of livelihood to family of deceased. Death of an employee in harness, does not give his dependent any vested right to get employment. After going through the said judgment we are of the vie w that the said judgment lays down principles for giving employment to dependent of an employee on his death in harness but in the case before us the petitioner was already in employment. The said judgment has no application in the case before us, in any manner. 8. Mr. Sahay relying on paragraghs 3 (a) and (b) of counter- affidavit submitted that petitioner was a temporary Government servant and being a temporary Government servant, he has no right to the post and his services can be terminated in terms of 1975 Rules. It is curious enough to note that in the counter-affidavit, self-conflicting stands have been taken. In paragraph 3 (a) of the counter affirmed by Uma Kant Misra it has been asserted that : (a) The father of the petitioner was employed as peon in the year 1971, in the Collectorate, Basti, when the father of the petitioner died the petitioner was appointed as temporary Peon in the Collectorate in leave arrangement on 11-7-1973. (b) Thereafter the petitioner continued his efforts to be appointed in place of his father who died during employment and accord ingly, he gave an application to the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur. (c) The father of the petitioner having died in the year 1971 during employment, he being dependant of his deceased father, G. O. was issued in the year 1973 for employing dependants c f the deceased persons who died during employment, the petitioner was not entitled to get the benefit of the G. O. issued in 1973, inasmuch as his father had died in the year 1971 and he was appointed in leave arrangement as already mentioned. The petitioner continued to be accommodated in leave arrangement in the Collectorate with breaks. The petitioner continued to be accommodated in leave arrangement in the Collectorate with breaks. In paragraph 3 (b) of the said counter-affidavit it has been asserted that the petitioner, some how or the other succeeded in getting recommendation from the then officer, Incharge for getting the benefit of the G. O. of 1973, and accordingly, recommendation was made to the then District Magistrate, Basti. The petitioner was successful in getting his appointment on the basis of the G. O. of 1973 and accordingly he was appointed under the G. O. of 1973 on 11-7-1986. A new case has been sought to be introduced in the counter-affidavit by asserting that the petitioner appointed in the year 1986 in place of Ayodhya Prasad whose services were terminated. Sri Ayodhya Prasad has not been arrayed as party in the writ petition. From the appointment letter set out in Annexure III to writ petition, it appears that the petitioner was appointed in place of Sri Umadutt, as indicated above. We cannot place reliance on such a counter-affidavit, wherein self-conflicting stands have been taken. 9. After hearing both the parties at length this Court is of the view that this writ petition is entitled to succeed on one single score on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nayagarh Co-operative Central Bank v. Narayan, AIR 1977 SC 112 wherein the Honble Supreme Court observed, inter alia, that the Registrar having acquiesced in the appointment and having allowed the incumbent to work for thirteen years, it was not open to him to set aside the appointment of the incumbent after the incumbent was allowed to work for thirteen years and no action was taken in the meantime. Order by Registrar directing removal of incumbent on the ground that appointment was not made with his approval was set aside. 10. We respectfully agree with the view taken by the Honble Supreme Court in Nayagarh Co-operative Central Bank v. Narayan (supra) The fact of the case in hand are similar to the aforesaid case. The respon dent authorities having allowed the petitioner to continue with effect from 11-7-1973 for about 15 years till the termination order was passed, are estoped from dispensing with the services of petitioner as doctrine of acquiescence will come into play, as held in the case of Nayagarh Co-opera tive Central Bank v. Narayan (supra ). 11. The respon dent authorities having allowed the petitioner to continue with effect from 11-7-1973 for about 15 years till the termination order was passed, are estoped from dispensing with the services of petitioner as doctrine of acquiescence will come into play, as held in the case of Nayagarh Co-opera tive Central Bank v. Narayan (supra ). 11. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of opinion that the impugned order dated 19-5- 198s is liable to be set aside and petitioner is entitled to regularisation of his services. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 19-5-1988 contained in Annexure VI to the writ petition is hereby get aside. We direct the District Magistrate, Basti being respondent No. 2 to forthwith take back the peti tioner in service and regularise his services in terms of the earlier direction of the Commissioner Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur within a fortnight from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. We make it clear that since the petitioner was out of employment consequent to order dated 19-5-1988 he will not be entitled to the wages for the period during which he did not work. However, the aforesaid period of absence will not be treated as break in his service and will not deprive him from other consequential benefits such as regularisation seniority etc. 12. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .