JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Counsels for the parties and perused the record. 2. The petitioner was appointed under U.P. Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 vide order dated 15.3.1989, appended as Annexure 1 to the writ petition on compassionate ground on account of accidental death of his father late Sri Prem Shankar Tiwari, who was a permanent Tubewell Operator in the Irrigation Department. The letter of appointment of the petitioner dated 15.3.1989 is as under : dk;kZy; vf/kkklh vfHk;Urk uydwi vuqj{k.k [k.M] >k¡lh dk;kZy; Kki la[;k 128 ekg 3@89 Jh johUnz dqekj frokjh iq= Lo0 Jh Ásekadj frokjh dwi pkyd xzke mn;djuiqj iks0 ijor[kkuh ftyk okjk.klh dks fu;fer vf/k"Bku esa uydwi pkyd ds in ij osrueku 330&7&365&8&381 n0jks0&8&405&9&450 n0jks0&98&475 esa kkluknsk la0 th&12@1973 dkfeZd&2 fnukad 22-6-1984 esa fufgr Ákfo/kku ds vUrZxr e`rd vkf{kr ds :i esa uydwi pkyd ds in dk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djusa dh frfFk ls fuf;qDr dh tkrh gSA ;g vknsk loZFkk vLFkkbZ rFkk fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ds lekIr dh tk ldrh gSA budks ,d ekg dk uydwi pkyd ds in dk Áfk{k.k 15 fnu dk flfoy rFkk 15 fnu dk esdsfudy ÁkIr djuk gksxkA budh LFkkiuk ÁFke mi[k.M esa dh tkrh gSA lgk;d vfHk;Urk ÁFke budks Áfk{k.k ÁkIr djkdj rFkk Áfk{k.k ls larq"V gksus ij budh fu;qfDr gsrq v/kksgLr{kjh ls vknsk ÁkIr dj ysaxsA blds fy, bUgsa dksbZ ;k=k HkRrk ns; ugha gksxkA budks fuEufyf[kr Áek.ki= ,d ekg ds vUnj ÁkIr dj Ásf"kr djuk vfuok;Z gksxk % ¼1½ 100 :0 dk ÁfrHkwfe tks v/kksgLrk{kjh ds uke ca/kd gksxhA jk"Vªh; cpr ;kstuk ikl cqd }kjk tek djuk gksxkA ¼2½ LoLFkrk Áek.k i= eq[; fpfdRlkf/kdkjh okjk.klh ls ÁkIr dj tek djuk gksxkA ¼3½ budks uydwi pkyd cksMZ rFkk Mh0vkj0vks0 dh ijh{kk mŸkh.k djuk gksxkA ¼4½ pfj= Áek.k i= T;s"B iqfyl v/kh{kd okjk.klh ls ÁkIr dj tek djuk gksxkA g0 vkj0ih0 xxZ vf/kkklh vfHk;UrkÞ 3. His grievance is that by the impugned order dated 21.4.1989 passed by the Executive Engineer, his services have been terminated without any notice or opportunity, which is as under : dk;kZy; vf/kkklh vfHk;Urk uydwi vuqj{k.k [k.M] Hknksgh dk;kZy; Kki la[;k 141 ekg 4@89 vf/k{k.k vfHk;Urk] uydwi e.My] okjk.klh ds i=kad 2848 ¼ueaok@bZ&6@ew0vk0½ fnukad okjk.klh vÁSy 19] 89 ds vuqikyu ds dk;kZy; Kki la0 128 ekg 3@89 rFkk i=kad 359@bZ&10 ?k fnukad 15-3-1989 }kjk fuxZr Jh jfoUnz dqekj frokjh dwi pkyd dk fu;qfDr vknsk rkRdkfyd ÁHkko ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA ;g vknsk fnukad 21-4-1989 ls ÁHkkoh gksxkA g0 vkj0ih0 xxZ vf/kkklh vfHk;UrkÞ 4. It appears that the services of the petitioner were terminated in terms of the appointment letter in which it was provided that the services could be terminated without notice to him. 5. The controversy involved in this writ petition is covered by the decisions of this Court in catena of cases. Civil Misc. Writ No. 25956 of 1997, Ajay Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and others decided on 10.1.2000 reported in (2000)1 UPLBEC 719 may be referred to in this regard wherein it has been held that appointment made under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 is permanent in nature and cannot be terminated. Hence the condition in the appointment letter that services of the petitioner could be terminated without any notice is against settled position of law. Services of employee cannot be terminated without giving any opportunity of hearing and except in accordance with law. 6. Following the ratio laid down in Ajay Kumar Sharma’s case (supra), the writ petition is allowed. Since petitioner is continuing in service in terms of interim orders dated 21.8.1990 and is getting salary, month by month, question of issuance of any direction for payment of salary does not arise. It is made clear that in the circumstances the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits of permanent appointment. No order as to costs. ————