SAEED-UR-REHMAN FARRUKH, J.-.Brief facts are: the petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Assistant by respondent No. 1 on 25.1.1993. He assumed charge of this office and continued to perform his duties till 24,1.1993 when he was informed by respondent No 1 that his services have been terminated. (Annexure B) It appears that thereafter respondent No. 2 was appointed on the job. Previously held by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has find the present writ petition.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been condemned unheard and that the reason given in the termination order i.e. a direction having been issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 13192 93 to terminate the sen ices of the petitioner is non-existant as no such direction was issued.
3. Learned Law Officer has gone through the contents of the Writ Petition No. 13192/93 and 13191 93 and the order dated 11.10.1993 whereby the writ petitions Were disposed of and has very fairly conceded that the petitioner was neither a party in the writ petitions nor any order touching affecting his sen ices was passed therein.
4. Respondent No. 1 acted illegally in referring to the decision of writ ; petitions referred to above in proceeding to throw the petitioner out of job. The order passed therein had no nexus with the petitioner. Had the petitioner been afforded a chance of personal hearing before the impugned was passed, this unfortunate situation might not have arisen for the petitioner.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that this writ petition is accepted to the impugned order is declared to be without law full authority with the result at the petitioner shall be treated to be holder of the post in question, without a ?Ak in his service. Since he has not performed duties during this period, he is not tiled to claim salary for the same.