JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Ujagar Singh has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calling in question the legality and propriety of the order, dated 26th July, 1971, copy Annexure 'H' to the petition, terminating his service with immediate effect.
(2.)Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged before me that according to the terms and conditions of re-employment of the petitioner, he was entitled to one month's notice in writing or payment of one month's salary and allowances before his services could be terminated; that under the impugned order the services of the petitioner have been terminated with immediate effect; that it was legally incumbent on the authorities to have paid one month's salary and allowances along with the order of termination and that as one month's salary in lieu of the notice was not tendered, the order of termination of service of the petitioner is illegal and void. In support of his contention the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Senior Superintendent, R.M.S. Cochin and another v. K.V. Gopinath, Sorter, 1972 AIR(SC) 1487
(3.)The above mentioned contention of the learned counsel has been advanced on the basis of the pleas that were allowed to be taken by way of amendment, because in the original writ petition the only ground taken for the quashing of the impugned order was that the same had been passed mala fide. The specific pleas taken in the amended petition read as under :-
"18(A) That according to the terms of re-employment of the petition, he is entitled to one month's notice in writing before his services are terminated or by payment of one month's salary and allowances alongwith the order of termination. In this respect, para (vii)(c) of the appointment order of the petitioner, Annexure 'A' may kindly be perused.
18(B) That according to the order, Annexure 'H' the service of the petitioner have been terminated with immediate effect. Neither one month's as required under the terms of re-employment has been given to the petitioner nor one month's salary in lieu of the notice has been tendered to the petitioner along with the termination order.
18(C) That para 2 of the order, Annexure 'H', itself shows that the termination order did not accompany a cheque or payment in any other form of one month's salary to the petitioner, the termination order says that the salary will be paid (sometime in future).
18(D) That the impugned order, Annexure 'H', is liable to be quashed on the short ground that the petitioner was not paid one month's salary as required according to his terms of re-employment along with the termination order. The law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in 1972 AIR(SC) 1487 fully covers the case of the petitioner.
18(E) That the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from the 26th of July, 1971, and he was entitled to the salary from 26th of July to 25th of August, 1971. That salary should have been given to the petitioner along with the termination order. As mentioned in paras above, no such salary was paid to the petitioner. As a matter of even till to day, the said amount of salary in lieu of one month's notice has not been paid to the petitioner. Itt may be mentioned that even the salary of the petitioner from 1st of July to 25th of July, 1971, has also not been paid to the petitioner as yet. Under the directions of the State of Punjab, the Accountant General, Punjab, Simla, has directed the Treasury Officer, Punjab, Treasury, Chandigarh, not to make any further payment ot the petitioner till he produces "No Demand Certificate" from the Government. A copy of the letter of the Accountant General, Punjab, Simla, to the Treasury Officer, Punjab, Chandigarh dated 5th August, 1971, Annexure 'I' to this petition. It is thus obvious that even if the petitioner himself wanted to withdraw the salary he would not do the same in view of the letter, Annexure 'I'.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.