Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-" (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Lower Appellate Court has erred in holding that the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India were attracted in the instant case ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Lower Appellate Court has erred in holding that the plaintiff respondent had attained the status of a quasi permanent or permanent employee ?" ( 2. ) THE brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondent plaintiff was appointed as Peon in Irrigation Department on 31-7-71. He was continued in the employment till 11-4-75. In the meantime he was arrested and prosecuted in criminal offence and thereafter on 18-7-79 he was acquitted from the charges of criminal offence. But in the meantime on 11-4-75 his services were discontinued. After acquittal in criminal case he filed suit for declaration that his termination order is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside and he is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that he was temporary in the employment and his services were terminated on account of allegations that criminal case is pending against him and he is being prosecuted and the suit was dismissed. Thereafter the respondent plaintiff preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal of plaintiff, set aside the judgment and reinstated the appellant in service with all back-wages against which the State has preferred this appeal which was admitted on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. ( 3. ) IT was held by the First Appellate Court that since the appellant was continued in service for more than three years he was entitled to be treated as quasi-permanent under the provisions of Rule 3 of M. P. Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi Permanent) Service Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as service Rules, 1960) and relied on the decision in the case of Purushottamlal Dhingra, reported in AIR 1958 SC 36 . ( 4. ) IN this second appeal I have heard learned Counsel for parties. Shri Puntambekar, Govt. Advocate appeared on behalf of the State Govt. and Shri. S. S. Garg appeared on behalf of respondent. ( 4. ) IN this second appeal I have heard learned Counsel for parties. Shri Puntambekar, Govt. Advocate appeared on behalf of the State Govt. and Shri. S. S. Garg appeared on behalf of respondent. Shri Puntambekar submitted that the learned First Appellate Court has wrongly interpreted the provisions of Rule 3 of the aforesaid Service Rules of 1960 and wrongly placed reliance on the decision in the case of Purushottamlal Dhingra (supra ). His submission is that in the case of Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1854 , the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court had occasion to interpret the Rule 3 which is analogous to the Rules framed by the Central Govt. in which it has been held that this Rule is clearly meant to apply to all quasi-permanent employees and shows that no Government servant can be deemed to be in quasi-permanent service until a declaration has been issued and in this case no such declaration as required under Rule 3 Sub-rule (ii) was issued in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, he is not entitled to get the benefit of quasi-permanent employee automatically and, therefore, the First Appellate Court has wrongly decreed the suit and granted the relief. ( 5. ) IT is not in dispute before me that during the pendency of this appeal the sole respondent Gyanprakash has expired on 22-1-86 leaving behind no legal heirs and there is nobody in the family to succeed him as he had already lost his parents and he was not having any brothers or sisters and one Kanhaiyalal Saxena who is elder brothers son of the respondent was impleaded as party in the appeal and he was submitted that he will obtain a legal heir certificate and shall produce before this Court but uptil now he has not filed any such certificate before this Court. ( 6. ) IN reply Shri Garg submitted that the Rule 3 will not be applicable as the termination is based on allegations and has caused stigma, before that no opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent, thus the order is against the rules of natural justice. ( 7. ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for parties I am also of the view that this is not the legal position here. ( 7. ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for parties I am also of the view that this is not the legal position here. The Supreme Court has already summarised the legal position in the case of Champaklal Chimanlal Shah (supra ). In such circumstances when the services of the respondent were terminated under the Rules the termination cannot be challenged on the ground of stigma. The Govt. servant can be deemed to be quasi-permanent in service only when rule is fully complied. A declaration under second sub-rule of Rule 3, is sine qua non for the commencement of quasi-permanent service and without such a declaration quasi-permanent service cannot begin. The First Appellate Court on wrong premises, set aside the order, without considering the effect of non-compliance of Rule 3 of the said Rules and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Champaklal (supra ). ( 8. ) THUS, in the light of the pronouncement of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, this appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree granted by the First Appellate Court is set aside and the judgment and decree of Trial Court regarding dismissal of the suit is restored with no order as to costs.