H M ABDUL SALAM Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question calls for decision in these four writt petitions. Hence, they shall stand disposed of by this order.

(2.) All the petitioners were compulsorily retired from service by the orders made under Note I to Rule 285 of the Mysore Civil Service Regulation. 1958 They were served with the orders without pavment of their salary in lieu of three months notice. They were paid a couple of days later. On these facts it, was urged for the petitioners, that the orders of their retirement were illegal and inoperative. The contention in other wards was that an order made under Note 1 to Rule 285 should accompany the pavment of salary for three months in lieu of notice. In support of the coptention, reliance was tilled on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sonio Superin endent, RMS v. K.V.Gopinath, AIR 1972 SC. 1487.

(3.) To appreciate the contention, it is necessary to set out Note 1 to Rule 285. It reads :