M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the U. P. Public Service tribunal dated 2. 2. 1993. The respondent No. 1 was a purely temporary employee. It is settled law that a temporary employee has no right to the post. There is nothing to show that the respondent No. 1 was regular appointee appointed after a regular selection. Hence, he cannot, claim to be continued in service. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent No. 1 was not given a written order of termination, and this was one of the grounds given by the Tribunal for allowing the claim petition. We are of the opinion that a termination order can be oral, particularly in respect of temporary/ casual or ad hoc employees. Learned counsel for the respondent then submitted that one months notice pay was not given. It is settled law that even if one months notice or notice pay was not given, the termination order would not become illegal on that account. ( 4 ) FOR these reasons, we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 2. 2. 1993. The petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, we direct that the respondent No. 1 should be given one months salary in lieu of notice of termination. .