The payment of one month's pay and allowances is a condition precedent for valid termination of services under the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, as interpreted by relevant case laws.

K.K. Mathew, J.

1. The petitioner who is an employee in the Post and Telegraphs Department has filed this petition praying for quashing Ext. P-1 order passed by the 1st respondent terminating his services, by the issue of an appropriate writ or order.

2. The 2nd respondent issued a circular on 12-9-1968 directing his subordinates to take action against every employee who was absent from duty on 19-9-1968. The petitioner being absent from duty on that day his services were terminated by the 1st respondent with effect from the 26th September, 1968 under R.5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Services) R.1965, hereinafter called the Rules, by Ext. P-1 order. The order states:

"In pursuance of the proviso to sub-r.(1) of R.5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) R.1965 I hereby terminate forthwith the services of Shri. K. V. Gopinath Ty, Sorter H. R. O., Cochin-16 (name and designation) and directs that he shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of pay and allowances for a period of one month (in lieu of the period of notice) calculated at the same rate at which he was drawing them immediately before the date on which this order is served on or, as the case may be, tendered to him."

3. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that his services were not terminated by paying one month's pay and allowances as required by the proviso to sub-r.(b) of R.5 of the Rules, and so Ex: P-1 order is bad. Petitioner contends that it was only on the 28th that the disbursing officer was given intimation of Ext. P-1 order, and supplied with the necessary funds, and that even if the petitioner had known on the date of Ext. P-1 that he will be able to get the one month's pay and allowances from the disbursing officer , he would not have got it as that officer had no intimation about Ext. P-1 order, nor was he supplied with the necessary funds before the 28th. R.5 of the Rules provides:

"5(a) The service of a temporary Government servant who is not in quasi permanent service shall be liable to termination at any time by notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority, or by the appointing authority to the Government servant.

(b) The period of such notice shall be one month unless otherwise agreed to by the Government and by the Government servant:

Provided that the service of any such Government servant [may be terminated forthwith by payment to him of a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month or any agreed longer period:

* * * *

The one month's pay and allowances were sent by M. O. to the petitioner on 9th October 1968. The question for consideration is whether payment of one month's pay and allowances should have been made or offered simultaneously with the termination of the services of the petitioner by Ext. P-1 order. The wording of the proviso to the rule appears to be clear that it is only by the payment that the services can be terminated forthwith. In support of the contention that his services could have been terminated only by payment of one month's pay and allowances, petitioner's counsel referred me to the ruling in Balagopalan v. State of Kerala (1963 KLT 1167) In that case a Division Bench of this Court had to consider a similar question, and the court held that payment of one month's salary was a condition precedent for a valid termination of the service of the petitioner there. The court followed the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha (AIR 1960 SC 610). In that case the Supreme Court dealt with the question whether there can be a valid retrenchment under S.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act without payment of me month's notice pay as required by that section, and held that payment of one month's notice pay is a condition precedent for the retrenchment, and that non compliance with the said condition woul