LAWS(DLH)-1977-12-10

GURU DAYAL PERSHAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On December 23, 1977
GURU DAYAL PERSHAD Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr. Gum Dayal Pershad, who has invoked the jurisdiction' of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has had to wait nearly for 4 years hoping the President of India to review his order dated 17-4-1965 terminating the Petitioner's services w.e.f- 22nd May 1965 (the same having been served on 22-4^1965) and for nearing 8 years in this Court to get the relief which he seems to be entitled, even on purely legal grounds.

(2.) The facts of this case are briefly stated: The petitioner holds a Masters Degree in Agricultural Science and two Ph.D. Degrees Ph.D. (Botany IOWA, U.S.A.) and Ph.D. (Genetics -IOWA, U.S.A.) besides being a Fellow of the Indian. Genetics Society. He was selected for appointment as Director of the Central Silkworm Seed Station, Srinagar w.e.f. 1-6-1962. The Silk Board is a public enterprise, a Statutory Corporation. It is common ground that he had been serving at the said Station on and from 1-6-1962 till the date of his termination which took place after he had been transferred to Mysore as Assistant Director of the Central Sericultural Research and Training Institute, Mysore; he had joined there on 28-4-1964 (A.N.). The memorandum dated 5-5-1962 (copy of which is Annexure R-l to the counter filed by the first respondent) informed him that he had been selected for the said post of Director, Central Silkworm Seed Station, Srinagar on an initial pay of Rs. 700 per mensem in the scale pay of Rs. 700 40 1100 50/2 1250; in addition to pay, he would be entitled to draw such other allowances as were admissible to officers of Central Silk Board posted at Srinagar. The appointment was to be temporary; he would be on probation for a period of two years from the date he assumed charge of the post. The following portion of the Memorandum is important and may be quoted verbatim:

(3.) It is only necessary to note at this stage that his appointment was not terminated, as contemplated above by the clause permitting termination by giving one month's notice within the period of probation.