1972 Supreme(Raj) 226
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Kan Singh, J.
Motilal Khairatilal Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Union of India (Uoi) - Respondent
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 144 of 1970. (Against Shri Mangilal Jain, District Judge, Jaipur.)
Decided On : 30-03-1972
Rule 149(4) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code requires the railway administration to pay the salary for the notice period simultaneously with the service of the order of termination of services.
Headnote:
RAILWAY SERVICES - Termination of Service - Notice Period - Payment of Salary - Indian Railway Establishment Code, Rule 149(4) - Interpretation.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a temporary employee of the Western Railway, was terminated from service without being given a notice period or payment of salary in lieu thereof. The plaintiff challenged the termination order, arguing that it violated Rule 149(4) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, which required the payment of salary for the notice period in lieu of notice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Rule 149(4) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code required the railway administration to pay the salary for the notice period simultaneously with the service of the order of termination of services. The court found that the railway administration had not complied with this requirement, and therefore, the termination order was invalid.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was a temporary employee or a permanent employee. 2. Whether the termination of the plaintiff's services was in violation of Rule 149(4) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Rule 149(4) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code to mean that the railway administration could terminate the services of a temporary employee without giving a prior notice, but it had to pay the salary for the notice period simultaneously with the service of the order of termination. The court held that the railway administration had not complied with this requirement, and therefore, the termination order was invalid.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower court, and remanded the case to the trial court for determination of the question of arrears of pay or damages to be awarded to the plaintiff.
No ES/890/8
Dated 5th July, 1961 Office Order
Sub: Recruitment of class III Service
...
Shri Moti Lal Sharma is appointed substitute Lab. Asst. in scale Rs. 60-150 (P) on Rs. 60/- plus allowances as admissible on the terms and conditions laid down in this office letter No. ES/890/6 dated 13-3-61.
Sd/- President Rly. Schools & DPO, Jaipur"
It will be noticed from the above that the terms and conditions that were to govern the plaintiff's appointment were those laid down in the office letter dated 13th March, 1961. That office letter has been brought on record as Ex. A 12. I may read the relevant portions of this letter:
"Western Railway
Registered Post Ack. Due
---------------------------
No. ES/890/6
Divisional Office, Jaipur. 13th March, 1961
Shri Motilal Sharma S/o
Khairati Lal Sharma
Carpenter IOW BK I
Sub; Employment to Railway Service Class HI staff Tfc. Deptt.
----
You are hereby appointed as Sub Lab, Asstt. in the scale of Rs. 60-150 (P) on Rs. 60/-per month plus compensatory allowance, house allowance and dearness allowance as admissible under the rules in this office.
2. The appointment offered to you is temporary and your services are liable to be terminated on 14 days notice or pay in lieu thereof. You will be considered for appointment in a permanent post on completion of a prescribed period of probation.
3. You will have to conform all rules & regulations applicable to Government Railway employees"
"You are being taken on trial on probation & appointment is not guaranteed."
No. ES/890/7 Vol. II
Divisional Office, Jaipur Dated 25-6-64
Shri Motilal,
Substitute Lab. Assistant,
Rly: M.P.H.S. School BK I
(Through the Principal, Rly. M.P.H.S. School BK
I) Sub: Recruitment To Class III Substitute Teachers
-----
Your services are not required with effect from 25/6/64 afternoon. Necessary charge if any held by you may please be handed over to the person as directed by the Head Master/Principal to whom a copy of the letter is being endorsed.
Sd/- President Rly. School and DPO Jaipur"After serving the notice under Section 80 C.P. C the plaintiff brought the suit in the court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. The plaintiff averred that the order of termination was in the nature of a penalty and was in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution as no show-cause notice was served on him. The plaintiff claimed that he was a probationer and as a period of one year had been fixed by the relevant statutory rules as the period of probation he should be taken to have been confirmed on the post on completion of this period and thereafter his services could be dispensed with only in accordance with the disciplinary rules and not otherwise. The plaintiff took the position that though he was posted in the vacancy caused temporarily on account of one Shri P.D. Deshmukh having gone on leave, a clear vacancy thereafter occurred when the se