V. M. SAHAI, J. ( 1 ) THE question of law that arises for consideration in this petition filed by a class IV employee is whether a person appointed against a vacant post till further orders could be restrained or prevented from working/attending office without any order? ( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed on 7. 6. 90 on daily wages on the post of waterman. He was transferred from Kanpur to Jhansi in September, 1991. On 14. 11. 91, he was appointed on the vacant post of class IV on a fixed salary of Rs. 750 p. m. His appointment was to continue till further orders. The petitioner made a representation that he has been working satisfactorily, therefore, he may be regularised. In the last week of February, 1994, the Bhoomi Sanrakshan adhikari, suddenly, without any reason did not permit the petitioner to attend and sign the attendance register. The petitioner approached this Court and filed this petition in the first week of March, 1994 and claimed that he was High School and was appointed against a vacant post, yet he was not being permitted to work without issuing any show cause notice or passing any order. On 17. 3. 94, this Court directed the petitioner to make a representation and the respondent was directed to decide it with speaking order. The petitioner immediately made a representation, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 18. 11. 94. In paragraph 2 of the representation, it was stated that he continued in service till 28. 2. 94. In paragraph 6, it was claimed that he made a representation on 22. 6. 92 for regularisation which was forwarded by the then Bhoomi Sanrakshan Adhikari with recommendation in favour of the petitioner. In paragraph 7, it was stated that the Bhoomi Sanrakshan Adhikari without assigning any reason directed the petitioner on 28. 2. 94 orally not to sign the attendance register. This representation was dismissed on 12. 5. 94, copy of the order has been filed as Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, facts are not denied. The allegation in paragraph 12 of the writ petition that he worked regularly from 7. 6. 90 till february. 1994 is not denied. This representation was dismissed on 12. 5. 94, copy of the order has been filed as Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, facts are not denied. The allegation in paragraph 12 of the writ petition that he worked regularly from 7. 6. 90 till february. 1994 is not denied. What is claimed in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit is that the petitioner was engaged during summer vacation as a waterman on daily wage basis. And there was no vacant post of class IV employee in the department, therefore, there was no question of appointing petitioner on class IV post. In paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, it is alleged that the petitioner absented from duty of his own will without any information or application for leave. ( 3 ) I have heard Sri Umesh Chandra Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. P. Singh learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. ( 4 ) THE appointment letter dated 14. 11. 1991 Annexure-4 to the writ petition clearly states that the petitioner was appointed on vacant class IV post. He was to continue till further orders. No order was admittedly passed by the respondents terminating his services. In absence of any order, the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service. The respondents have illegally stopped him from signing the attendance register. Payment of salary has also not been made to him. Even if a person is a temporary employee, his services can only be terminated by written order and in service Jurisprudence the respondents were under legal obligation and duty to pass a written order. Normally it cannot be accepted that an employee would abandon his duty. No exceptional circumstance could be pointed out to give rise to an inference that the petitioner left the service. On the contrary, he immediately filed a writ petition claiming relief to continue in service and for payment of salary. Even assuming that the statement of the respondent is correct in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was absent from duty, the respondents were required in law to pass a written order terminating his service. Since no order was passed terminating the services of the petitioner, he is entitled to be treated in service. The action of the respondents was not only illegal, but arbitrary. Since no order was passed terminating the services of the petitioner, he is entitled to be treated in service. The action of the respondents was not only illegal, but arbitrary. ( 5 ) I now take up the order passed by Deputy Director (Bhoomi Sanrakshan) on representation made by the petitioner in pursuance of order passed by this Court on 17. 3. 94. The respondent no. 3 in his order made comments on various paragraphs of representation. The allegation in paragraph 2 of the representation has not been denied except repeating that petitioner was daily wager. In reply to paragraph 6, the making of the representation by the petitioner is admitted but it is stated that appointment is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the government. In these circumstances, it was not possible to appoint petitioner as there might be other qualified persons. Paragraph 7 is vaguely commented by observing that it was not admitted. The claim of the petitioner that he was appointed against a vacant post of class IV is substantiated by appointment letter filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The respondents have failed to explain this. They have referred both in the counter-affidavit and the order deciding representation that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages. This is contrary to the order of appointment which clearly says that the petitioner who was working as daily wager in the office of Bhoomi Sanrakshan Adhikari, Moth, was appointed with immediate effect on fixed salary of Rs. 750 p. m. in the vacant post of class IV. The observation of the Deputy Director (Bhoomi Sanrakshan) that the petitioner could not be regularised as there might be other eligible persons is too vague. The petitioner was working in vacant post. In absence of any reason, he could not be asked to stop working. It is not denied that in 1992 the Bhoomi Sanrakshan adhikari had recommended his regularisation. Therefore, in absence of any reason, the respondents acted arbitrarily in stopping him from signing the attendance register. The allegation that the petitioner absented himself of his own will without any application for leave has been made without any basis. It is not denied that in 1992 the Bhoomi Sanrakshan adhikari had recommended his regularisation. Therefore, in absence of any reason, the respondents acted arbitrarily in stopping him from signing the attendance register. The allegation that the petitioner absented himself of his own will without any application for leave has been made without any basis. It is very difficult to believe that the petitioner who was appointed as daily wager in 1990 and then on fixed salary on vacant post in 1991 and had made a representation for regularisation in 1992 which was recommended in his favour would stop attending the office. If it would have been correct, he would not have filed writ petition within less than two weeks. The facts belie the case set up in counter-affidavit that the petitioner absented without leave. If an employee is absent without leave, his services cannot come to an end orally. In absence of any order dispensing with service of the petitioner, he shall be deemed to continue in service. When the Court passed an order directing petitioner to make representation, it was implied that the respondent would apply his mind and pass an order in accordance with law. The respondent repeated that the petitioner was dally wager, it has been seen that it was contrary to the appointment letter. The respondents did not care to look into the appointment letter otherwise he would not have made the observation. The other reason that other persons might be available is equally untenable. A person working from before was claiming regularisation. If it could be done, he should have been informed rather than penalise him for seeking regularisation by stopping him from attending office. In either case, the respondents acted illegally in not permitting the petitioner to attend the office. The order passed by Deputy Director (Bhoomi Sanrakshan) deciding representation cannot be upheld as it is not based on any reason. It further shows complete non-application of mind, ( 6 ) IN the result this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 12. 5. 1994 rejecting representation of petitioner passed by respondent No. 3 is quashed. A direction is issued to respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as class IV employee with all consequential benefits of service and pay the arrears of salary within three months from the date this judgment is produced before them. The order dated 12. 5. 1994 rejecting representation of petitioner passed by respondent No. 3 is quashed. A direction is issued to respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as class IV employee with all consequential benefits of service and pay the arrears of salary within three months from the date this judgment is produced before them. ( 7 ) SINCE the petitioner was appointed in 1991 and he is being reinstated, the respondents are directed to regularise his service in class IV within the aforesaid period. ( 8 ) PETITIONER shall be entitled to his costs. .