MURLIDHAR JOSHI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, Murlidhar Joshi, seeks to challenge the order dated 10th June, 1957, whereby the petitioner was retired compulsorily from service with effect from 1st July 1975 under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules ('here in after referred to as 'the Rules').

(2.) THE petitioner joined Government service on 6th February, 1947 as Constable in the Police department of the erstwhile State of Jodhpur. On 10th August, 1949, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Constable. By order dated 24th March 4953, he was confirmed on the post of Head Constable with effect from 15th January, 1953. By order dated 10th June 1975, the petitioner was ordered to be compulsorily retired from service with effect from 1st July, 1975 fore noon. In the said order it was mentioned that the petitioner would be entitled to 3 months' salary in lieu of notice period as provided in the Rules. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) THE submission of the petitioner in the writ petition, as it was originally filed, was that the order of compulsory retirement dated 10th June, 1975 was illegal and void in as much as it was incumbent upon the Government to tender three months' pay and allowances in lieu of notice along with the order of compulsorily retirement and that the failure to tend fir the said amount along with the order vitiated the said order. In support of the aforesaid submission reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Senior Superintendent, R M. Section Cochin and Anr. v. K.V. Gopinnth : (1972)ILLJ486SC , wherein the Suprement Court had construed the proviso to Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, which provided for termination of f services of a temporary Govt servant by giving one months's notice or by payment of one months' salary in lieu of notice. The Supreme Court, in the aforesaid case, held that the failure on the part of the Government to pay one month's salary in lieu of notice along with the order of termination rendered the order of termination null and void.