A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER claims to have been appointed as Barber (Nai) in the department of Sena Nayak. 28 wahini, P. A. C. , Etawah on 28th March, 1990. Copy of appointment has not been filed and moreover learned counsel for the petitioner stated that no appointment letter is being Issued and said persons are being allowed to work orally. In para 2 of the petition, it is alleged that services of the petitioner were regularised. Again no order of regularisation has been annexed. ( 2 ) PETITIONER seeks to challenge impugned order dated March 25, 1992, whereby concerned Sena nayek issued an order discharging the petitioner from services in exercise of its power contemplated under U. P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975 stating that temporary services of the petitioner, who was a temporary employee, were no more required and the same shall be deemed to have come to an end w. e. f. receipt of the notice (Annexure-1 to the writ petition ). Petitioner under ex parte interim order dated 18. 6. 1992 managed to continue in the department but said order came to an end when this petition was dismissed on December 7, 1998 and interim order was discharged. On the basis of said order, the concerned department passed an order dated 1. 8. 2000 when it came to know dismissal of the petition aforementioned order dated December 7. 1998. Vide order dated 1. 8. 2000 the concerned sena Nayak removed the petitioner as the interim order did not exist. The petitioner had filed an application for restoration dated 10. 8. 2000. The writ petition was restored to Its original number but interim order was not restored and consequently, the petitioner is not working in the department. ( 3 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Meena Singh and Sri Ajay Bhanot, brief holder appearing on behalf of the respondents. ( 4 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed in this petition. In para 3 of the counter-affidavit, it is admitted that petitioner was appointed on the temporary post of Barber 28. 3. 1990. It is, however, stated that the work and conduct of the petitioner was unsatisfactory during the years 1990, 1991 and 1992. ( 4 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed in this petition. In para 3 of the counter-affidavit, it is admitted that petitioner was appointed on the temporary post of Barber 28. 3. 1990. It is, however, stated that the work and conduct of the petitioner was unsatisfactory during the years 1990, 1991 and 1992. It is further mentioned that petitioner was awarded cash fine for 13 times for various kinds of misconduct and negligence in discharging of duties and he was also warned to improve his work and conduct. In spite of it, petitioner cannot take them seriously and failed to improve his work and conduct. Consequently, he has been discharged from service by giving notice as required under law since he was temporary employee. The facts mentioned in para 3 of the counter-affidavit clearly show the motive for removing the petitioner from services. The impugned order of termination is innocuous and contains no aspersion or stigma against the petitioner. The order in question is an order of termination simpliciter. The temporary employee has no right to claim the post as such otherwise. ( 5 ) IT is, however, made clear that petitioner will not be compelled to refund any amount which he had received in lieu of working under interim order of this Court in the past. ( 6 ) IN view of the above, I find no merit in this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. ( 7 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. .