SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, R.M.S. COCHIN & ANR. versus K. V. GOPINATH, SORTER

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 530 · Decided: 18-02-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.K. MITTER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~30 
i,ENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, R.M.S. COCHIN & ANR. 
v .. 
K. V. GOPINATH, SORTER 
'February 18, 1972 
A 
[C. A. VA!DIALINGAM AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
B 
Civil Servant-Central Services (Temporary 
Ser~e) Rules 
1965, 
, r. 5(1) (b) proviso-Scope of. 
The strvices of tOO respondent, a temporary government servant, were 
lerminated on a particular day, but his s~la<Y, and allowane<ls due tiH then 
were not paid on that date. 
The High Court held that the termmallon 
, was not in accordance with the provisions of r. S of the Central Service 
C 
{Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD: (1) Rule 5(!)(a) gives the Government ~swell as the em-
ploy~ a right to put an end to the service by a notice in writing. 
Under 
r. l(b) the period prescribed for such notice is one month. The proviso 
to the ~uh-rule however gives the Government an option not to retain the 
D 
employee in service till the expiry of the period of the notice; but to be 
effective, the termination of seryice 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-FJ 
(2) Since the words used are plain and unambi~ous they must be · .~· 
construed in their ordiOary sense without any considerations of policr,..--E 
[532 F-GJ 
-
(3) There will always b> some time during whic.h the authority deli-
berates over the matter and makes up his mind, and within tb:.i.t time, 
directions can be given that the pay and allowances of the govemment 
ocrvant should be calculated so that they could 1:e offered to the em-
p1oye_e at the time when the order of termination is served on him. 'There 
1s no difficulty in the calculation because the payment is to be made 'at 
F 
the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the 
termination of his services.' Therefore, there is no merit in the con-
tention that it would be impossible for the authorities to give effect to th~ 
provisv 1f payment was to be µiade simultaneously with the servioo on 
the employee of the order of termination. [532 H; 533 A-DJ 
( 4) The words of the rule construed in the State of U.P. v. Dinanath 
Rni, C.A. No. 1734/68 dt. 11-10-1968, though some what similar to the 
G 
words of r. 5 only entitled the employee to pay fcir the period of the 
notice but did not lay down any condition as tO when tfu payment was 
to be made. [534 F-GJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Aopea] No. 1706 of 
1971. 
. 
· 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
H 
January 5, 1971 of the Kerala High Court in Civil Writ Appeal 
No. 534 of 1969. 
· 
A 
.B 
D 
E 
F 
G 
JI 
!!.. M. S, v, K. V. GOPINAT!I (Mitter, J.) 
531 
R. H. Dhebar, for the appellants. 
A. S. R. Chari, A. K. Gupta, S. C~ Agarwal and V. J. Francis, 
for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Mitter, J, The only question involved in this appeal is, whether 
the order dated Septembet' 25, 1968 terminating the services 
Of the respondent, a temporary Government servant, was in 
accordance with the provisions of Rule 5 of the Central Service 
(Temporary Service) Rules 1965, hereinafter referred to as the 
'Rules'. 
The services of the respondent ap)'(!ar to have been terminated 
on the basis of the directive containe:I in a circular dated 12th 
September 1968 that action should be taken against every 
employee who absented himself from duty on 19th September, 
1968. No contention was raised at any stage that no action could . 
be taken under Rule 5. This said rule reads :-
"5. Termination of temporary service . ..c:: 
(I) (a) The services of a temporary Government 
servant who is. no' in quasi-permanent service shall be 
liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing 
given either by the Government servant to the appoint-
ing authority or by the appointing authority to the Gov-
ernment servant; 
(b) the period of such notice shall be one month; 
P.rovided 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 allow-
ances for the period of the notice at the same rates at 
which he was drawing them immediately before the ter-
mination of his services, or, as the case may be, for the 
period by which such notice falls short of one month

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