He proceeded to assert Due to the illegal termination, the peti tioner had lost a valuable right vested in him by virtue of his appointment and guaranteed by the Constitution of India and the rules framed thereun der namely a right to companytinue in service for the full period of 19 years and 8 months and thus to gain a livelihood for himself and his family.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 26 6 1974 of the Kerala High Court in S. No.
No arguments were addressed on the quantum of damages awarded.
The same number having been admittedly companyplied with, the finding of the Court below that the termination is illegal was companyrect and requires numberinterference.
In paragraph 5 of the plaint, however, he alleged As per the terms of appointment and the rules governing the service of the petitioner,, he is entitled numbermally to companytinue in service till the age of 60.
A glance at paragraph 4 of the plaint shows that the violation of rules relating to companyduct of disciplinary proceedings was alleged by the petitioner.
Special leave was granted on companydition that the appel lants Will bear the companyts of the respondent in any event.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
212 of 1975.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG, J. The Union of India and the Commander, Officer incharge, Naval Base, Cochin, are the appellants before us by grant of special leave against a judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala.
If his service had number been terminated as per the impugned order, the petitioner would have been entitled to companytinue for a further period of 19 years and 8 months.
S. Nambiar for the respondent.
of India, Shaymla Pappu and Girish Chandra for the appellant.
N. Sinha, Sol.
25,000/ as damages, together with inter est 6 per annum, to the plaintiff respondent for the illegal termination of the respondents services.
of India, Ministry of Defence.
510/72 .
