- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Uttar Pradesh v. Dinanath Rai .
Factual and Procedural Background
Dinanath Rai (“the plaintiff”) was selected as a Sub-Inspector of Civil Police and, after training, joined duty on 2 January 1958. On 9 February 1961 the Deputy Inspector-General of Police issued an order terminating the services of two temporary Sub-Inspectors, including the plaintiff, with an undertaking that they would be paid one month’s pay and allowances in lieu of notice.
The plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the termination order was illegal, contending inter alia that no one month’s pay in lieu of notice was paid to him on the date of termination and that no clear one-month notice had been served. The trial court accepted this contention—relying on an Allahabad High Court decision in A.P. Tripathi v. State of U.P.—and decreed the suit. The Additional Civil Judge, Gorakhpur, upheld the decree on appeal. The State’s further appeal to the High Court was dismissed in limine. The State then obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, resulting in the present decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, under the 1953 U.P. general rule governing termination of temporary government servants, failure to pay one month’s salary in lieu of notice at the time of termination renders the termination order invalid.
- Whether the plaintiff was a “temporary” government servant to whom the rule applied or a “probationer” outside its scope (an issue raised but not decided by the lower appellate court).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments (State of U.P.)
- On a correct interpretation of the 1953 rule framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the Government has an option either to give one month’s notice or to substitute pay in lieu thereof; the rule does not require that the pay be physically disbursed on the very date of termination.
- The courts below, in relying on A.P. Tripathi, misconstrued the rule and thereby reached an erroneous conclusion.
Respondent’s Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| A.P. Tripathi v. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) | An order terminating a temporary employee without contemporaneous payment of one month’s salary in lieu of notice is illegal. | The Supreme Court disagreed with the reasoning in Tripathi, holding that the statutory rule does not mandate payment at the moment of termination. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court closely examined the 1953 notification issued under Article 309. Clause (1) makes the services of a temporary employee terminable “by notice in writing,” while Clause (2) allows the appointing authority to “substitute for the whole or part of this period of notice pay in lieu thereof.” The Court reasoned as follows:
- The rule provides a clear option: either give one month’s notice or pay in lieu of notice.
- Nothing in the text stipulates that the pay must be tendered in cash or cheque simultaneously with the termination order.
- Given the practical realities of governmental administration, it would be unreasonable to imply such a requirement absent express language.
- Therefore, non-payment of the amount on the exact date of termination does not, by itself, invalidate the termination; the employee’s entitlement to payment subsists and can be satisfied “in the ordinary course.”
- The contrary view adopted in A.P. Tripathi was therefore unsound.
Because the lower appellate court had not examined other grounds—particularly the plaintiff’s status as a probationer versus a temporary employee—the Supreme Court found it necessary to remit the case for determination of those unresolved issues.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED; DECREES OF THE HIGH COURT AND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE SET ASIDE; CASE REMITTED FOR FRESH DISPOSAL.
Immediate Effect: The plaintiff’s declaratory decree is vacated, and the matter returns to the Additional Civil Judge, Gorakhpur, for adjudication on outstanding issues.
Broader Implications: The Supreme Court clarifies that under the 1953 U.P. rule governing temporary government servants, failure to tender pay in lieu of notice at the precise moment of termination does not, per se, render the termination void. The decision limits the applicability of A.P. Tripathi and removes a procedural hurdle for government departments effecting such terminations, without establishing new constitutional principles.
Sikri, J.— This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing in limine the appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Gorakhpur, who had confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court decreeing the respondent's suit for a declaration that the order dated February 9, 1961, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, terminating his services as Sub-Inspector of Police, was illegal.
2. In order to appreciate the point it is raised before us necessary to mention the facts in brief. Dinanath Rai, respondent — hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff” — was selected as a Sub-Inspector of Civil Police. After selection he joined the Police Training College, Moradabad, on January 28, 1957, and after the training, according to the plaintiff, he joined on January 2, 1958, as a probationary Sub-Inspector. On February 9, 1961, his services were terminated by the following order:
“The services of the following temporary Sub-Inspectors of Police of Gorakhpur District being no longer required are hereby terminated with effect from the date on which this order is communicated to them:
(1) SI, C.P Balwant Singh.
(2) SI, C.P Dina Nath Rai
2. Both these officers will be paid one month's pay and allowances in lieu of notices.”
3. The plaintiff challenged this order on various grounds, one ground being that the plaintiff was not paid one month's salary in lieu of notice on February 9, 1961, when his services were actually terminated, nor was one month's clear notice served on him before terminating his services. The trial court, relying on the decision of the High Court in A.P Tripathi v. State of U.P accepted this contention and held that since the plaintiff had not been paid salary in lieu of notice on February 9, 1961 the termination order was illegal. However, contrary to the contention of the plaintiff, the trial court held that the plaintiff was a temporary servant and not a probationer.
4. The State appealed, and the Additional Civil Judge, Gorakhpur, following the above mentioned decision of the High Court, as he was bound to, confirmed the decree. The State then filed an appeal to the High Court but its appeal was dismissed in limine. The State having obtained special leave, the appeal is now before us.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant urges that on a proper interpretation of the relevant rules the judgments of the High Court and the courts below are erroneous. The relevant rule reads as follows:
“Government of Uttar Pradesh Appointment (B) Department
NOTIFICATION
No. 230.IIB-1953, dated January 30, 1953.
In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of U.P is pleased to make the following general rule regulating the termination of services of temporary government servants:
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any existing rules and orders on the subject, the services of a government servant in temporary 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.
(2) The period of such notice shall be one month given either by the appointing authority to the government servant, or by the government servant to the appointing authority, provided that in the case of notice of the appointing authority the latter may substitute for the whole or part of this period of notice pay in lieu thereof; provided further that it shall be open to the appointing authority to relieve a government servant without any notice or accept notice for a shorter period, without requiring the government servant to pay any penalty in lieu of notice.”
6. We are unable to read this rule in the way it apparently was read by the High Court in A.P Tripathi v. State of U.P. In that judgment Seth, J., did not reproduce the rule but he observed:
“The notice issued by the Regional Food Controller, Varanasi Region, Gorakhpur, on 26th March, 1953, terminating the services of the petitioner along with seven other persons mentioned that the services of the petitioner shall be terminated after giving one month's pay in lieu of notice of discharge. The petitioner was never paid one month's pay in lieu of notice was paid to the petitioner after the counter-affidavit it is mentioned that one month's further pay in lieu of notice was paid to the petitioner after the petitioner had been acquitted by the Special Judge on 15th May, 1958. It is also mentioned in the same paragraph that the pay of the petitioner was not paid at the time of the termination of his service as at that time certain proceedings were contemplated against the petitioner for the alleged misappropriation of 235 bags of wheat. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner was not paid a month's salary in lieu of notice of discharge on 26th March, 1953, when the petitioner's services were actually terminated. The order dated 26th March, 1953 terminating the petitioner's services without paying him a month's salary in lieu of notice of discharge was, therefore, clearly illegal.”
7. It is not clear whether the learned Judge had only interpreted the notice in that case or any statutory rule. Be that as it may, it seems that that learned Judge was of the view that if a month's salary in lieu of notice not paid when a Government servant's services are terminated the order of termination is bad.
8. It seems to us that the meaning of the statutory rule is clear. It gives option to the Government to either give a month's noice or to substitute for the whole or part of this period of notice pay in lieu thereof. The rule does not say that the pay should be given in cash or by cheque at the time the notice is issued Knowing the way the governments are run, it would be difficult to ascribe this intention to the rule-making authority. There is no doubt that the government servant would be entitled to the pay in lieu of notice but this he would get in the ordinary course.
9. In the result the appeal must succeed. The learned counsel for the plaintiff says that the plaintiff had raised other points before the trial court, including the point whether the plaintiff was at all covered by this statutory rule because, according to him, the plaintiff was not a temporary government servant but a probationer. As these points were not decided by the Additional Civil Judge in the appeal, the case must be remitted to him to dispose of it according to law.
10. In the result the decrees of the High Court and the Additional Civil Judge are set aside and the case is remitted to the Additional Civil Judge, Gorakhpur, to decide it according to law. The costs incurred in this Court will be costs in the cause.
Alert