RAKESH KUMAR SINGH versus THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, RAIBARALI

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 671 · Decided: 20-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

/. 
y 
RAKESH KUMAR SINGH 
v. 
THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, RAIBARALI 
MARCH 20, 1996 
[S.C. AGARWAL AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.] 
U.P. Intemiediate Education Act, 1921 .- Section 16-C. 
Regulation 25-lnteipretation of 
Employee-f'robation-Termination during-Provision for one month's 
salary or notice in lieu thereof-Mode and time of payment not 
prescribe~Tem1inatio11 without notice and salary in lieu not invali~But 
employee held entitled to sala1y for period of notice. 
A 
B 
c 
The services of the appellant, a Lecturer in the College run by the D 
Respondent-Committee, were terminated during the period of probation. 
The Deputy Director of Education 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 
nnder Section 16-C of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The High E 
Court set aside the order of Deputy Director holding that (i) though giving 
of one month's notice or one month's pay in lien thereof was necessary yet 
it was not a condition precedent to the exercise of power under Regulation 
25; and (ii) termination of service without notice or salary in lieu thereof 
would not render the termination order invalid but would entitle the 
employee to one month's salary only. Against the decision of the High F 
Court an appeal was preferred before this Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The view taken by the High Conrt is correct. Regnlation 
.Jr 
25 gives an option to the management either to give one month's notice or G 
one month's pay in lien thereof. It does not provide for the mode or time 
for payment. It only entitles the temporary employee or the probationer to 
his pay for the period of notice. As Regulation 25 does not provide payment 
of one month's pay in lien of notice as a condition precedent to the effective 
termination of service, the High Court was right in setting aside the order H 
671 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
672 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19%) 3 S.C.R. 
of the Deputy Director who had taken a contrary view. [677-B-D] 
2. Where the rule permits giving of pay in lieu of notice of termina-
tion and does not further provide as to when the payment is to be made, 
it only entitles the employee to get 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 impllca-
tion that payment to the employee of whatever is due to him should be 
simultaneous with termination of his service then fulfilment of that re-
quirement has to be regarded as a condition precedent to the valid ter-
mination. [676-G-H; 677-A) 
State of U.P. v. Dinanath Rai, (1969) S.L.R. 647, relied on. 
Managing Committee, Soha11 Lal Hi!fter SecondlllJI School v. Sheo 
Dutt Gupta, (1974) A.L.J. 465 and Senior Superintendent R.M.S. Cochin v. 
K. V. Gopinath, [1973) 3 SCC 867 = AIR (1972) SC 187, distinguished. 
Director of Technical Education v.Jan Mohammad, (1975) All L.R. 8, 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2448 of 
1978. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12. 77 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C. Misc. W.P. No. 3171of1972. 
Pramod Swarup Ms. Pareena Swrup and Prashant Choudhary for the 
Appellants. 
R.B. Misra Adv. (NP) for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
NANAVATI, J. 
The appellant was appointed as a Lecturer on 
G 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 
H and passed a resolution for termination of service of the appellant. The 
)-
' 
' 
,,.. 
"' 
.. 
.... 
R.K. SINGH v. COMMITIEE OF MANAGEMENT [NAN AV AT!, J.] 673 
college being a recognised institution under the U .P. Intermediate Edu ca- A 
tion Act, 1921, prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools was 
necessary for effectively terminating the service of the appellant and there-
fore, 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 B 
the Management terminated the petition

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.