LAWS(SC)-1968-10-19

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. DINANATH RAI

Decided On October 11, 1968
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Appellant
V/S
DINANATH RAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing in limine the appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the Additional civil Judge, Gorakhpur, who had confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial court decreeing the respondent's suit for a declaration that the order dated 9/02/1961. passed by the Deputy inspector-General of Police, terminating his services as Sub-Inspector of police was illegal.

(2.) In order to appreciate the point raised before us it is necessary to mention the facts in brief. Dinanath Rai, respondent,-hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff-was selected as a Sub-Inspector of Civil police. After selection he joined the Police Training College, Moradabad, on 28/01/1957, and after training, according to the plaintiff, he joined on 2/01/1958, as a probationary Sub-Inspector. On 9/02/1961, his services were terminated by the following order :- the services of the following temporary Sub-Inspectors of Police of Gorakhpur District being no longer required are hereby terminated with effect from the date on which this order is communicated to them :- (1) S. I C. P. Palwant Singh. (2) S. 1. C. P. Dina Nath Rai. 2. Both these officers will be paid one month's pay and allowances in lieu of notices. "

(3.) The plaintiff challenged this order on various grounds one ground being that the plaintiff" was not paid one month's salary in lieu of notice on 9/02/1961, when his services were actually terminated, nor was one month's clear notice served on him before terminating his services. The trial court, receiving on the decision of the high court in A. P. Tripathi v. The State of U. P. accepted this contention and held that since the plaintiff had not been paid salary in lieu of notice on 9/02/1961. the termination order was illegal. However, contrary to the contention of the plaintiff, the Trial court held that the plaintiff was a temporary servant and not a probationer.