1986 (1) TMI 383 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the termination order.
2. Applicability of Rule 5(1)(b) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.
3. Interpretation of the terms of appointment.
4. Reliance on the notification versus statutory rules.
5. Status of the respondent as a temporary or permanent employee.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Termination Order:
The primary issue was whether the termination order was valid given that the respondent was not paid the salary and allowances for the notice period simultaneously with the termination notice. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court had quashed the termination order on this ground, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that the payment of notice salary was not a pre-requisite for termination under the amended Rule 5(1)(b).

2. Applicability of Rule 5(1)(b) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965:
Rule 5(1)(b) was amended in 1971 with retrospective effect from May 1, 1965, stating that the services of a temporary government servant could be terminated forthwith, and the servant would be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the notice period. The Supreme Court clarified that the amended rule applied to the respondent, who was appointed in 1975, and thus, the payment of notice salary could be made after the termination order.

3. Interpretation of the Terms of Appointment:
The respondent argued that his appointment was to a substantive post since he was placed on probation. However, the Supreme Court held that the appointment order clearly indicated that the respondent was a temporary employee and that being on probation did not alter his temporary status. The Court emphasized that the terms of appointment and the rules governing service conditions would prevail.

4. Reliance on the Notification versus Statutory Rules:
The Division Bench had relied on a 1967 notification which suggested that services of probationers should be terminated as per the terms of the appointment letter and not under Rule 5(1). The Supreme Court found this reliance misplaced, stating that a notification does not have statutory force and cannot override the rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution. The rule, being legislative in character, governed the service conditions and not the notification.

5. Status of the Respondent as a Temporary or Permanent Employee:
The respondent contended that he was not a temporary hand since he was placed on probation. The Supreme Court dismissed this contention, reiterating that the appointment order specified his temporary status and that being on probation did not change this. The Court also noted that the respondent's probation was extended, and the termination occurred before the expiry of this extended period.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench, reinstating the decision of the learned Single Judge, which upheld the termination order. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs. The Court also expressed sympathy towards the respondent and suggested that the appellants consider providing him with another job, though no assurances were given.