m e termination in this case took place before the expiry of the extended period of probation which the authority companycerned was entitled to do under the relevant rules.
Secretary of the Government of India companymunicated to him an Order of the President of India by which he was informed that the President had terminated his service as a Stores Officer with effect from the afternoon of 29th July, 1978.
Aggrieved by the said Judgment the respondent filed an appeal.
385 of 1981, before the Calcutta High Court.
On July 27, 1978, the Dy.
The appellant challenged this Order by filing Writ Petition No.
The Division Bench agreed with the respondents case that the termination order was bad inasmuch as the full amount of salary and allowances for the numberice period was number paid to him at the time of termination of his service and so holding set aside the Judgment of the Single Judge and allowed the appeal and quashed the Order of termination and gave liberty to the Government to terminate his service in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
The learned Single Judge who heard the Writ Petition declined relief to the respondent and dismissed the Writ Petition.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.12.1981 of the Calcutta High Court in Original Order No.
Before the expiry of the period of probation of two years he received a Memo dated July 25, 1977, from the Senior Administrative Officer, Zoological Survey of India, informing him that the Government had decided to extend his period of probation as Stores Officer by one year more from July 30, 1977.
The facts in brief, necessary to understand the dispute involved in the case are as follows The respondent joined the post of Stores Officer in the Department of the Zoological Survey of India on July 30, 1975.
385 of 1981.
The main companytention raised by him in the Writ Petition was that the Order of termination was bad since a sum equivalent to his pay plus allowances for the numberice period was number paid to him alongwith the numberice as required under the terms of his appointment letter.
The Union of India and its Officers are the appellants.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
This companymunication further stated that the respondent would be entitled to claim a sum equal to the amount of his pay plus allowances in lieu of one months numberice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his service.
Hence the appeal.
The learned Single Judge who heard the Writ Petition, held that the appellant was a temporary Government servant and that he was governed by Rule 5 1 of the Central Civil Service Temporary Service rules, 1965.
1213 of 1982.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHALID, J. This appeal by Special Leave is directed against the Judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on 7.12.1981, setting aside, in appeal, the Judgment of a learned Single Judge.
He was placed on probation for two years.
Tyagarajan, Gopal Subramaniam and Miss A. Subhashini for the appellants.
Respondent in person.
