http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: RAKESH KUMAR SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, RAIBARALI

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       20/03/1996

BENCH: NANAVATI G.T. (J) BENCH: NANAVATI G.T. (J) AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (5)   532        1996 SCALE  (3)34

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T NANAVATI,J.      The appellant  was appointed as a Lecturer on probation for a  period of  one year  from 6th  August,  1970  in  the college run  by Respondent No.1.. In May 1971, the Principal of the  college submitted  a report  to the  Management that performance of  the appellant  was not satisfactory and that he was not fit to be continued in service. The Management at its meeting  held on 20th June, 1971, considered that report and passed  a resolution  for termination  of service of the appellant. The  college being a recognized institution under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, prior approval of the  District   Inspector  of   Schools  was  necessary  for effectively terminating  the service  of the  appellant  and therefore, the resolution-cum-proposal of the Management was forwarded  to   the  concerned   District  Inspector.  After considering the  same the  District Inspector  by his  order dated 5th  July,  1971,  accorded  approval.  Thereupon  the Management terminated  the petitioner’s service on 6th July, 1971. The  appellant  preferred  an  appeal  to  the  Deputy Director of Education. By an order dated 15th March, 1972 he allowed the  appeal and  held the termination invalid on the ground that  neither one  month’s notice nor one month’s pay in lieu  of notice was given to the appellant as required by Regulation 25 framed under Section 16 C of the Act.      Against that order the Management filed a Writ Petition being Civil  Misc. Writ  Petition No.  3171 of  1972 in  the Allahabad High  Court. It  was not  disputed before the High Court that Regulation 25 which reads as under :      "25. The  services of  a  temporary      employee (other than a probationer)      or  of  a  probationer  during  the      terms  of  his  probation,  may  be      terminated at  any time  by  giving      him  one  months’s  notice  or  one      month’s pay in lieu thereof."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

was applicable.  It was also not in dispute that neither one month’s notice nor one month’s pay in lieu thereof was given to the  appellant. The  High Court  construing Regulation 25 held that though giving of one month’s notice or one month’s pay in  lieu thereof  is necessary  that is  not a condition precedent to the exercise of power under that regulation and therefore, even  if one  month’s notice  is not given or one month’s pay is not paid at the time of termination that will not render termination of service invalid but will make the employee entitled to one month’s salary only. The High Court took this view following its earlier decision in Director of Technical Education  Vs. Jan  Mohammad (1975 All. L. R. P.8) and allowed the petition.      Learned counsel  for the  appellant relying upon a full bench decision  of the  Allahabad  High  Court  in  Managing Committee, Sohan  Lal Higher  Secondary School Vs. Sheo Dutt Gupta (1974  A.L.J. P.  465) contended that Section 16-G (3) (a) of  the Act  applies to a probationer also and therefore the services  of a  probationer cannot  be terminated unless notice of  termination is served after obtaining approval of the Inspector.  He  further  submitted  that  Regulation  25 requires giving  of one month’s notice or one month’s pay in lieu thereof.  As one  month’s notice  was not  given to the appellant nor  was he  paid one  month’s pay, termination of his service  ought to  have been  held as  invalid. In  S.D. Gupta’s case  two points  which arose for consideration were whether the  notice of  termination of  the services  of the probationer teacher  could be served before the according of approval by  the District  Inspector of Schools and secondly whether in  the facts  and circumstances of the case service of the  notice of  termination prior  to the granting of the approval could  be condoned.  The Allahabad  High Court held that Section  16-G (3)(a)  which provides that no principal, Head Master  or teacher  may be  discharged  or  removed  or dismissed from  service or  reduced in  rank or subjected to any distinction  in emoluments  or  served  with  notice  of termination of  service except  with the  prior approval  in writing of  the  Inspector,  having  been  worded  generally applies to  every case of termination of service where prior to the termination some notice has to be given and therefore it applies  to a  probationer also.  In that  case notice of termination of  service was  given and  therefore  the  High Court had  not to  consider the question as to what could be the effect  of not  giving the  requisite notice.  Therefore reliance placed upon. S.D. Gupta’s case is really misplaced.      The learned counsel also drew our attention to the case in Senior  Superintendent R.M.S.  Cochin Vs.  K.V.  Gopinath (1973 (3)  SCC 867  : AIR  1972 SC  187) wherein  this Court interpreting Rule  5(1)(b) of  Central Services  (Temporary) Services Rules  1965, dealing  with termination of temporary service, has  held that  to be  effective the termination of service has  to be  simultaneous with  the  payment  to  the employee of  whatever is due to him. The Rule which fell for consideration in that case was as under :-      "Termination of temporary service.-      (1)(a) The  services of a temporary      Government servant  who is  not  in      quasipermanent  service   shall  be      liable to  termination at  any time      by a notice in writing given either      by the  Government servant  to  the      appointing  authority   or  by  the      appointing   authority    to    the      Government servant:      (b) the period of such notice shall

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

    be one month;           Provided that  the services of      any such  Government servant may be      terminated forthwith  by payment to      him of  a  sum  equivalent  to  the      amount of  his pay  plus allowances      for the period of the notice at the      same rates  at which he was drawing      them   immediately    before    the      termination of his services, or, as      the case  may be, for the period by      which such  notice falls  short  of      one month."      Interpreting the  said  Rule  this  Court  observed  as under:-      "Rule   5   (1)   (a)   gives   the      Government as  well as the employee      a  right  to  put  an  end  to  the      service by  a  notice  in  writing.      Under  Rule   1  (b)   the   period      prescribed for  such notice  is one      month. The  proviso to sub-rule (b)      however  gives  the  Government  an      additional right  in that  it gives      an option  to the Government not to      retain the  service of the employee      till the  expiry of  the period  of      the notice;  if it  so  chooses  to      terminate the  service at  any Lime      it can  do so forthwith "by payment      to him  of a  sum equivalent to the      amount of  his pay  plus allowances      for the period of the notice at the      same rate  at which  he was drawing      them   immediately    before    the      termination of  his services, or as      the case  may be, for the period by      which such  notice falls  short  of      one  month."   At   the   risk   of      repetition, we  may note  that  the      operative words  of the proviso are      "the   services    of   any    such      Government    servant     may    be      terminated forthwith  by  payment".      To put the matter in a nutshell, to      be  effective  the  termination  of      service has to be simultaneous with      the  payment  to  the  employee  of      whatever is  due to  him. .........      The rule  does not  lend itself  to      the   interpretation    that    the      termination  of   service   becomes      effective as  soon as  the order is      served on  the Government  servant,      irrespective of  the question as to      when the  payment due  to him is to      be made."      Before we consider whether Regulation 25 can be said to be similar  to the Rule which fell for consideration in K.V. Gopinath’s case  it is  necessary to  refer  to  an  earlier decision of  this Court  in State  of U.P  Vs. Dinanath  Rai (C.A. No. 1934 of 1986 decided on October 11, 1968, reported in 1969  Service Law  Reporter 647).  In that case also this Court had  to construe a rule for termination of services of a Government servant in temporary service. It was as under:-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

    "(1)  Notwithstanding  anything  to      the contrary  in any existing rules      and  orders  on  the  subject,  the      services of a Government servant in      temporary service  shall be  liable      to  termination   at  any  time  by      notice in  writing given  either by      the  Government   servant  to   the      appointing  authority,  or  by  the      appointing   authority    to    the      Government servant.      (2) The period of such notice shall      be one  month given  either by  the      appointing   authority    to    the      Government  servant,   or  by   the      Government    servant     to    the      appointing authority, provided that      in  the   case  or  notice  of  the      appointing authority the latter may      substitute for the whole or part of      this period  of notice  pas in lieu      thereof; provided  further that  it      shall be  open  to  the  appointing      authority to  relieve a  Government      servant  without   any  notice   or      accept notice for a shorter period,      without  requiring  the  Government      servant to  pay any penalty in lieu      of notice."      Construing that Rule this Court observed as under :      "The Rule does not say that the pay      should  be  given  in  cash  or  by      cheque at  the time  the notice  is      issued.   Knowing   the   way   the      Governments are  run, it  would  be      difficult to ascribe this intention      to the rule-making authority. There      is no  doubt  that  the  Government      servant would  be entitled  to  the      pay in  lieu  of  notice  but  this      would be in the ordinary course.      This decision  in Dinanath Rai’s case was considered by this Court  in K.V.  Gopinath’s case  and  distinguished  by observing that:      "No doubt the language of that rule      is somewhat similar to the words of      Rule 5  but there  is an  essential      difference.  The  rule  only  means      that the  pay for  30 days  or less      may be  substituted for service for      the period  of the notice. In other      words, the  rule only  entitles the      employee to  pay for  the period of      the notice  without laying down any      condition as to when the payment is      to be given."      Thus the consistent view of the Court is that where the rule permits  giving  of  pay  in  lieu  of  the  notice  of termination and  does not  further provide  as to  when  the payment is  to be made, it only entitles the employee to pay for the  period of  the notice  and payment  of  notice  pay cannot be  regarded as  a condition  precedent to  the valid termination of  service. but where the rule provides even by implication that  payment to the employee of whatever is due to him  should be  simultaneous  with.  termination  of  his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

service then  fulfillment of  that  requirement  has  to  be regarded as  a condition precedent to the valid termination. In view  of the  words "terminated  forthwith by payment" in the proviso to Rule 5(1)(b) this Court held that payment was intended  simultaneously   with  termination  and  that  was pointed out as the essential difference between Rule 5(1)(b) with which  is was concerned in Gopinath’s case and the rule which was considered in Dinanath’s case.      A bare  reading of  Regulation 25  indicates that it is more similar  to the  rule which  fell for  consideration in Dinanath’s case. It gives an option to the management either to give  one months  notice  or  one  month’s  pay  in  lieu thereof. It  does not  provide for  the  mode  or  time  for payment. Thus  the rule only entitles the temporary employee or the  probationer to  pay for  the period of notice. As we are of  the view that Regulation 25 does not provide payment of one  month’s  pay  in  lieu  of  notice  as  a  condition precedent to  the effective termination of service, the High Court was  right in  setting aside  the order  of the Deputy Director who  had taken  a contrary  view. The view taken by the High  Court is  correct and,  therefore, this  appeal is dismissed.      However, in  view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.