ABDUL HAKEEM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff appellant was, .at the relevant time, serving as a Booking Clerk in the North Eastern Railway in a temporary capacity. A notice dated 18th August 1965, signed by the District Commercial Superintendent, Izatnagar was served upon him terminating his service with effect from 21st of August 1965 as being no longer required. THE notice intimated that the plaintiff appellant would be given 14 days pay in lieu of notice. A true copy of the notice is on record. For convenience of reference it may be reproduced : North Eastern Railway Office Order

(2.) THE plaintiff appellant, in accordance with the rules and procedures applicable to his service, went up in appeal and made representation but to no effect. A suit was then filed by him in the court of Munsif Gorakhpur for declaration and recovery of arrears of pay. THE cause of action pleaded, inter alia, was that the notice of his termination of service was bad and invalid as it did not conform with the provisions of Rule 149 of the Railway Eastablisment Code Volume I. It was pleaded that the plaintiff's services even as a temporary servant could only be terminated by notice of one month or if the termination was to take effect with immediate effect or before the expiry of one month, then on payment of salary of one month. We need not for the purpose of deciding this appeal refer to other pleadings of the plaintiff as nothing would turn upon them in this appeal.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. WE find no difficulty in solving the question that arises before us. In the case of Technical Education U. P. Kanpur v. John Mohd. (supra), the Division Bench of this Court was concerned with the Rule applying to termination of services of temporary Government servants made by the State of Uttar Pradesh and published in the Notification dated 30th January, 1953. The material part of that rule is as follows :-