Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONER in this petition has assailed an order (P-15) dated 30-10-93 of termination of his services. ( 2. ) PETITIONER was appointed as Dealing Asstt. Initially on temporary basis as per order (P-l) dated 6-4-83; thereafter his services were regularized as per resolution (P-2 ). After regularization of his services he was promoted as asstt. Manager as per order (P-3) dated 20-1-87 in the pay-scale of Rs. 925-1500/-; pay-scale was later on revised. It appears that petitioner proceeded on leave from 13-9-93 till 14-10-93 for 32 days. He applied for leave which was sanctioned as per order (P- 9) dated 24-10-93. Petitioner was attached to Raipur as per order (P-11) dated 25-10-93. Petitioner filed application for extension of leave on 30-10-93 which was not considered; all of a sudden an order (P-15) of termination of his services was passed on 30-10-1993 in lieu of one months notice, salary was offered. Petitioner has submitted that order (P-15) is illegal and void. Petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing. No rules were framed by the respondents; once the services of the petitioner was regularized, he was promoted to the higher post, his services could not have been dispensed with in the manner it has been done as per order (P-15 ). ( 3. ) NO return has been filed by the respondents for the last 12 years. During the pendency of the writ petition, closure of Corporation has been ordered, approximately before 2 years. Some of the writ petitions are pending with respect to the closure as stated at bar. ( 4. ) IN my opinion, the impugned order (P-15) cannot be allowed to sustain; as petitioner was appointed temporarily, he was regularized, thereafter was promoted also. He was permanent employee not temporary one when order (P-15) of termination of his services was passed from the post of Asstt. Manger; no enquiry was done; show cause notice was not issued, hence, the order (P-15)cannot be allowed to stand. In Delhi Road Transport Vs. He was permanent employee not temporary one when order (P-15) of termination of his services was passed from the post of Asstt. Manger; no enquiry was done; show cause notice was not issued, hence, the order (P-15)cannot be allowed to stand. In Delhi Road Transport Vs. D. T. C. Mazdoor congress and others, AIR 1991 SC 101 it has been held that the order of termination of service of such employees cannot be allowed to sustain by service of notice or payment of wages in lieu of notice period, hence, in the instant case, the order (P-15) deserves to be quashed, it is violative of principle of natural justice; show-cause notice was not issued. Services of an employee regularly appointed and promoted could not have been dispensed with in the manner done as per impugned order (P-15 ). ( 5. ) RESULTANTLY, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order (P-15) is hereby quashed. Petitioner is held entitled to the back wages till the date of closure. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred. Misc. Petition allowed.