Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a challenge to termination of a temporary government servant under the Central Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The respondent, a sorter, was employed on temporary basis and his services were terminated by the appointing authority following a directive issued by circular dated 12 September 1968, which mandated action against employees who absented themselves from duty on 19 September 1968. The respondent allegedly absented himself on that date and was issued an order of termination on 25 September 1968. However, the salary and allowances due to him for the notice period were not paid on the same date. The respondent filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court challenging the termination; a learned single judge quashed the order and a division bench upheld that decision. The department then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The core legal issue was interpretation of Rule 5(1) of the Central Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, especially the proviso to clause (b), which permitted termination forthwith by payment of a sum equivalent to pay plus allowances for the notice period. The question was whether the termination could be valid if payment was not made simultaneously with the service of the termination order. The appellant department contended that the rule did not require payment at the exact time of termination and that practical administrative difficulties would arise if simultaneous payment were mandated. They relied on an earlier Supreme Court decision in State of U.P. v. Dinanath Rai, where a similar rule was interpreted to mean that pay in lieu of notice could be given in the ordinary course without specifying the time of payment. The Supreme Court, after examining the language of the proviso, held that the operative words 'the services of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith by payment' clearly indicated that payment was a condition of termination forthwith. The rule could not be read to allow termination first and payment later. The Court observed that the plain and unambiguous words must be given their ordinary meaning without importing policy considerations. It rejected the argument of practical impossibility, noting that the authority would have sufficient time during preliminary enquiry to calculate the dues, since payment was to be made at the rates at which the employee was drawing pay immediately before termination. In the present case, the circular was issued on 12 September and the employee allegedly absented on 19 September, so the authority had at least six days to compute the amount, yet no payment was made on 25 September when the order was served. The Court distinguished State of U.P. v. Dinanath Rai on the ground that the rule there merely entitled the employee to pay for the notice period without prescribing when payment must be made, whereas the present rule expressly made payment a condition of termination forthwith. The Court also noted that decisions in Seshavataram v. State of Hyderabad and Venkataswami v. Director of Commerce & Industries did not assist the appellant. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay costs of the respondent in terms of the special leave order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Temporary Service Termination - Proviso to Rule 5(1)(b), Central Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 - The proviso permits termination of temporary government servant forthwith only by simultaneous payment of pay plus allowances for the notice period; payment is a condition precedent to termination; order of termination served without payment on the same day was invalid - Held that termination was not in accordance with Rule 5 and was rightly quashed. B) Statutory Interpretation - Plain Meaning Rule - Central Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, Rule 5 - Words 'terminated forthwith by payment' are plain and unambiguous and must be given their ordinary meaning; policy considerations cannot override clear language - Held that the rule mandates payment at time of termination, not later. C) Precedent - Distinguishing State of U.P. v. Dinanath Rai - Rule in earlier case only entitled employee to pay for notice period without prescribing time of payment; present rule expressly made payment a condition of termination forthwith; hence earlier decision not applicable - Held that the appeal was dismissed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated September 25, 1968 terminating the services of a temporary government servant was in accordance with Rule 5 of the Central Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, particularly whether simultaneous payment of pay and allowances was required for termination forthwith under the proviso to Rule 5(1)(b).
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; termination order quashed; appellant to pay costs of respondent as per special leave order.
Law Points
- Under proviso to Rule 5(1)(b) of Central Services (Temporary Service) Rules
- 1965
- termination forthwith is conditional on payment of pay and allowances for notice period simultaneously with service of termination order
- payment is condition precedent to termination
- plain words of rules must be given ordinary meaning
- distinction from State of U.P. v. Dinanath Rai where rule did not prescribe time of payment
