KAMDEO JHA Vs. CHAIRMAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that the order passed on the 28th October, 1968 (Annexure 4) by the Chief Executive Officer of the Patna Improvement Trust, terminating the petitioner's, service from the 31st October, 1968, be quashed.

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows:

(3.) It is urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that when the appropriate authority had extended the term of the petitioner's service upto the 28th February, 1969, it could not have been terminated by the order passed on the 28th October, 1968. Our attention has been drawn to Rule 4(1)(b) of the Bihar Improvement Trust's Officers and Servants (Appointment, Classification, Conduct, Control and Punishment) Rules, 1956, under which an officer or a servant of the Trust shall retire from the service of the Trust on attaining the age of 55 years. He may be given an extension of service for a period not exceeding, one year at a time, as mentioned in that Rule Although this rule was substantially amended by notification dated the 3rd September, 1968, the order incorporated in Annexure 3 was passed before the amendment and, therefore, the amendment may be left out of consideration for the purposes of this case. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, once the tenure of the petitioner's service was extended fill the 28th February, 1969, , the order incorporated in. Annexure 4 cannot be sustained. Learned Counsel for the respondents opposite parties No. 1 and 2 has relied upon Annexure 1 and has contended that the petitioner's service was on a purely temporary basis and it could have been terminated before the 28th February, 1969. But clearly this contention is not valid, even if it be based on Annexure 1, as under that annexure, the petitioner's service could have been terminated by giving him one months' notice, but that was not done by the order incorporated in Annexure 4, passed on the 28th October, 1968. The petitioner's service . was terminated with effect from the 31st October, 1968. In those circumstances, we cannot accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents opposite parties No. 1 and 2, based on Annexure 1, in support of the order incorporated in Annexure 4. It is clear, therefore, that once the petitioner's tenure of service was extended till the 28th February, 1969 by the proper authority, his service could not have been terminated by the order passed under Annexure 4. The impugned order, in so far as it concerns the petitioner, is, therefore, quashed.