Dr. Sharda Prasad Bajpai-the petitioner has filed this writ petition to set aside the judgement of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal No. 2, Lucknow dated 5.10.1985 by which the Tribunal dismissed the Claim Petition No. 117/II/82 against order of termination of petitioner's services as temporary Medical Officer in the State Medical Services, under the U.P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975 both on merits as well as on the ground that the petitioner was deliberately avoiding services of the termination order dated 27.7.1978 and had filed the claim petition beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. The claim petition was filed on 15.5.1982 three years after the order of termination. 2. The petitioner was appointed on 4.4.1967 as Medical Officer in the Provincial Medical Services and was posted at E.S.I. Dispensary, Kanpur where he served upto 3.12.1969. He was transferred to Rudraprayag, District Pauri Garhwal on 15.12.1969. He made several representations against his transfer on the ground of family problems, illness of his mother and studies of his younger sister. His representations were not decided. He was thereafter posted at Dogadda, District Pauri Garhwal, where he alleges to have worked upto 9.8.1971. He was thereafter transferred to District Banda as Medical Officer Incharge, T.B. Clinic, and thereafter on 24.10.1973 to Primary Health Centre Kakori, District Lucknow. In February 1976 he was transferred as Medical Officer, Anti Epidemic Operation and posted in W.H.O. as Medical Officer, S.S.T. Lucknow Division. He was transferred to Sitapur as Medical Officer, S.S.T. Sitapur and was lastly transferred to Bhagwant Nagar, District Unnao, 60 kms from Raibareli. It is stated in para-17 and 18 of the writ petition that on account of his frequent transfers and posting to remote places he fell seriously ill on 26.9.1976, and remained on leave upto 16.4.1979. He thereafter requested for joining the duties but no reply was given to him. On 17.5.1979 one of his friends informed him about a publication in the daily newspaper 'Dainik Jagaran' edition on 17.5.1979 in which, the order of his termination dated 27.7.1978 was published. After receiving the information he filed the claim petition in 1982 in the Tribunal, challenging the termination order. 3. After exchange of affidavits, the Tribunal found that the petitioner was admittedly a temporary Gazetted Medical Officer and thus the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975 are applicable to him. After receiving the information he filed the claim petition in 1982 in the Tribunal, challenging the termination order. 3. After exchange of affidavits, the Tribunal found that the petitioner was admittedly a temporary Gazetted Medical Officer and thus the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975 are applicable to him. His services were terminated after making him entitled to one month's pay in lieu of notice. The service of notice of termination was not possible in ordinary course, and thus the notices had to be served by publication in press. 4. The Tribunal found that the termination simplicitor was not stigmatic. The order was not penal in nature and could not be said arbitrary or suffering from lack of good faith conscience, and equity. The petitioner's services were terminated on the ground of unsuitability. He was not considered suitable, or fit to be retained in service. He was reluctant to leave Kanpur, which is his home city and to join at any other place. He had joined the services fully aware of the fact, that he holds a transferable post and could be transferred anywhere in the State. The petitioner failed to join at Unnao. The certificate of taking charge at Unnao was signed by Shri Sudama Prasad, a Pharmacist, who was not entitled to hold charge, nor to give the charge certificate to the petitioner. Further the charge certificate shows that whereas the petitioner was transferred in July, 1976, the date in the charge certificate is 8.9.1976. The petitioner had alleged that he had applied for medical leave but that the medical leave was not sanctioned. He absented on his own sweet will. Had he taken notice of the termination order, the State would not have adopted the extensive procedure of publishing the notice in the newspapers. The Tribunal thereafter refused to believe that the petitioner did not have knowledge of termination of his services on 27.7.1978, and has made up a story of acquiring knowledge through a friend to file a claim petition. Under the unamended U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, the claim petition could be filed within a period of three years. The claim was thus barred by time. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim petition was filed on 15.5.1982 within three years of the date of termination order dated 17.5.1979. Under the unamended U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, the claim petition could be filed within a period of three years. The claim was thus barred by time. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim petition was filed on 15.5.1982 within three years of the date of termination order dated 17.5.1979. The Tribunal therefore erred in law in dismissing the claim petition as barred by limitation. He would further submit that the petitioner's leave applications were not decided and that the order of termination was passed on the foundation of his absence from services. The petitioner should have been subjected to a departmental enquiry. He submits that the impugned order is by way of punishment and thus the Rules of 1975, were not applicable. 6. The claim petition could be filed within three years from the date of order of termination i.e. 27.7.1978. The termination order could not be served on the petitioner as he was absent from duties and thus the order had to be published in daily newspapers 'Dainik Jagaran' on 17.5.1979. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the petitioner was reluctant to join at any place other than at Kanpur and had failed to prove that he had actually joined at Unnao. He was continously absent from duties on the pretext of illness. A specific finding has been recorded by the Tribunal:- "Thus the facts and circumstances brought on the record go to indicate that the petitioner was deliberately avoiding service of the termination order and very cleverly, as well as in a designed manner, the date of the knowledge of the termination order has been put forward as 17.5.79 in order to bring the time barred case within the period of limitation. The petitioner's version in this regard does not seem to be correct. The petitioner seems to be in the know of the termination order much prior to 17.5.79 and consequently the claim petition filed after three years is obviously barred by time." 7. The Tribunal further found that the termination order is not stigmatic. The petitioner was admittedly a temporary government servant and that his services could be terminated by giving him one month's notice, or pay in lieu thereof. If the State Government found him to be unsuitable to continue in the employment. The Tribunal further found that the termination order is not stigmatic. The petitioner was admittedly a temporary government servant and that his services could be terminated by giving him one month's notice, or pay in lieu thereof. If the State Government found him to be unsuitable to continue in the employment. The petitioner was reluctant to join at any place away from Kanpur and could not prove that he had joined at Bhagwantpur Centre, District Unnao. He remained absent from the centre for almost two years without sanction of leave. 8. From the material brought on record, we do not find that the Tribunal committed any error in holding that the claim petition was barred by time as well as in finding that the termination order was not founded upon any fact of misconduct and was based of unsuitability of petitioner's services. 9. The petitioner did not join at Unnao for about two years. He has not disclosed the nature of his illness, which kept him away from duties from 26.9.1976 to 16.4.1979. A copy of leave application, alleged to be made on 26.9.1976, was not annexed to the claim petition, and with the writ petition. Thereafter he did not care to join for almost three years upto 16.4.1979. The letter of request to join has also not been annexed. In the written statement filed in the Tribunal, it is stated that the petitioner worked in E.S.I. Dispensary Kanpur upto 3.12.1969. He made representation against his transfer, which was rejected on 17.12.1969. Thereafter he submitted conditional resignation to the Deputy Director of Medical and Health Services (E.S.I.) Kanpur. He joined at Rudra Prayag on 16.12.1969. He was required to serve for 5 years in rural areas as per his service conditions. He was transferred from Kakori PHC to Small Pox Scheme in public interest. 10. The petitioner was apparently not interested to serve at any place other than Kanpur and absented for long periods without authorisation. His temporary services were never confirmed, and were thus terminated on his unsuitability to service. 11. The writ petition is dismissed. Petition Allowed.