BALAGOPALAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner having been selected by the Kerala Public Service Commission for recruitment as a clerk on Rs. 40 120 per mensem, was provisionally appointed a Lower Division Clerk by the District Collector, Palghat, by order Ext. P 2 dated March 13, 1962, which reads:

(2.) The learned Government Pleader contended that the order of appointment reserves power in the Government to terminate the petitioner's service without assigning any reason, on a month's notice, that the instant termination was in exercise of that power and that therefore the petitioner could not claim any relief other than a month's pay in lieu of the notice. We do not feel convinced of this argument. Neither a month's notice, nor a month's salary in lieu of notice was given or offered to the petitioner before termination of his service. The plea in Para.10 of the counter affidavit on behalf of the State is thus:

(3.) It is pertinent to note here that even now the petitioner has not been offered a month's pay in lieu of notice and the counter affidavit says only that the Government, will consider the same "if requested for by the petitioner". Regarding employees in industries, the Supreme Court has held that failure to pay the prescribed compensation at the time of retrenchment renders orders of termination of their services "invalid and inoperative". (Vide The State of Bombay v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha AIR 1960 SC 610 ). We do not find any reason why the same shall not be the consequence of a non compliance of a month's notice stipulated under Ext. P 2, particularly when a greater security in public service is envisaged in Art.16 and 311 of the Constitution. It must then follow that the impugned orders have to be declared invalid and inoperative for the reason that they were violative of the terms of Ext. P 2, there being no allegation of any misconduct in the service of the petitioner in this case.