Senior Superintendent,r.M.S Cochin & Anr. VS. K. V. Gopinath, Sorter

Summary

---

The services of the respondent, a temporary government servant, were terminated on a particular day, but his.salary and allowances due till then were not paid on that date.

The High Court held that the termination was not in accordance with the provisions of r. 5 of the Central Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

Dismissing the appeal to this Court,

HELD : (1) 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 r. 1 (b) the period prescribed for such notice is one month. The proviso to the sub-rule however gives the Government an option not to retain the employee in service till the expiry of the period of the notice; but to be effective, the termination of service has to be simultaneous with the payment to the employee of whatever is due to him. The operative words of the proviso are 'the services of any such government servant may be terminated forthwith by payment', showing that the payment is a condition of the termination of service forthwith. [532

D-F]

Since the words used are, plain and unambiguous they must be construed in their ordinary sense without any considerations of policy. [532 F-G]

(3)There will always be some time during which the authority deliberates over, the matter and makes up his mind, and within that- time, directions can be given that the pay and allowances of the government servant should be calculated so that they could be offered to the employee at the time when the order of termination is served on him.

There is no difficulty in the calculation because the payment is to be made at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his services.' The fore, there is no merit in the contention that it would be impossible for the authorities to give effect to th proviso, if payment was to be made simultaneously with the service on the employee of the order of termination. [532 H; 533 A-D]

(4)The words of the rule construed in the State of U.P. v.

Dinanath Rai, C.A. No. 1734/68 dt. 11-10-1968, though 'some what similar to the words of r. 5 only entitled the employee to pay for the period of the notice but did not lay down any condition as to when the payment was to be made. [534 F-G]

See the full content of this document

Extract

---

Senior Superintendent,r.M.S Cochin & Anr. VS. K. V. Gopinath, Sorter

PETITIONER: SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,R.M.S COCHIN & ANR.

Vs.

RESPONDENT: K. V. GOPINATH, SORTER

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/02/1972

BENCH: MITTER, G.K.

BENCH: MITTER, G.K.

VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.

CITATION: 1972 AIR 1487 1972 SCR (3) 530 1973 SCC (3) 867

CITATOR INFO : F 1975 SC 536 (1)

O 1975 SC1116 (1,2)

R 1982 SC 149 (228)

O 1986 SC 737 (16)

O 1986 SC 999 (11,13,15,17)

ACT: Civil Servant--Central Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965, or 5(1) (b) proviso--Scope of.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1706 of 1971.

Appeal by s...

See the full content of this document

If you are already a vLex customer, access here

---