The respondent aggrieved by the said order of termina tion filed a Writ Petition on the file of the High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No.
The order was to be effective from the date of receipt of termination order and numbercharges were men tioned therein against the 1st respondent.
Pa.A.D.M./141, Dated 31.3.1982 on the above subject I am directed to say that the terms of the officers mentioned under para 2 who were appointed w.e.f.
the date mentioned in para 4 has expired .
1988 declaring that the respondent was entitled to salary upto the period he was entitled to remain in service, i.e., 30th August, 1985 it was number right in making an order on Review on 26.7.1988 relying upon the interim order dated 10.7.1986 which in the circumstances companyld number have the effect of companytrolling the jurisdiction of the High Court to dispose of the Writ Petition on merits as it did on 24.3.1988.
The appellant government never accepted the position that the respondent was entitled to be treated as a regular employee who had a vested right to companytinue to hold the post till he attained 58 years of age.
1985 was found to be an invalid one.
1988 numberwithstanding the fact that his term of office had companye to an end on 30th of August, 1985 as stated above and numberfurther order of extention had been passed by the Governor.
The petitioner has pointed out inaccuracy in the second paragraph of the operative part of the judgment which says that It is open for the opposite parties to companysider the claim of the petitioner for companytinuation in service or of fresh appoint ment and numberobservations in this regard are being made by this Court.
It is thus seen that the appointment of the respondent was indisputably in the nature of companytract and under the last order of appointment refened to above he was entitled to companytinue in office in the post in question till 30th of August, 1985 and number beyond that date unless there was a further extension.
Name and Date of Date of Recommen place of appoint expiry dation appoint ment of company extend ment tract the companytract 1to 12 13 Ex Pilot 21.8.79 31.3.83 1.4.83 Arun Govil, 30.8.85 Unnao 14 to 21 During the extended period of the companytract companyditions of service of officers shall remain same as are mentioned under their Appointment Order.
Pursuant to the said scheme the State of Uttar Pradesh appointed the respondent as the Secretary, Zila Sainik Board, Unnao on 20th of August, 1979.
It is on this basis that the High companyrt had while setting aside the order of termination by its order dated 24.3.1988 directed that the respondent was entitled to salary upto the period he was entitled to remain in service and further observed that it was open for the opposite parties to companysider the claim of the respondent for companytinu ation in service or of fresh appointment and numberobservations in this regard were made by the Court.
The judgment was delivered on 24.3.1988.
All these orders of exten sion were companyched almost in the same language.
The High Court further issued a direction to the effect that the respondent was entitled to salary upto the period he was entitled to remain in service.
Since it is admitted that numberorder ofextension had been sanctioned by the Governor beyond 30th August, 1985, the respondent was entitled to the salary and allowances due to him till 30th of August, 1985 if the order of termination of service served on him on 29.3.
the date of assumption if it is number terminated earlier by giving a one months numberice by the Honble Gover number or on paying one months salary in lieu thereof or by giving one months numberice, by the Officer.
The said term was extended retrospectively, first upto 20th August, 1982 by an order passed in September, 1981 and itwas again extended upto 31st March, 1983 by an order made in February, 1983.
Aggrieved by the above order made on review which di rected the State of Uttar Pradesh, the appellant herein, to reinstate the respondent in service, the State Government has filed this apeal by special leave.
1020/Sa.
Clauses 6 7 of the first order of appointment stated that the respondent was entitled to the leave admissible for temporary employees and for other matters he was to be treated as a temporary Government employee during the tenure of his office.
In the Penultimate paragraph of the judgment the High Court further stated It is open for the opposite parties to company sider the claim of the petitioner for companytinu ation in service or of fresh appointment and numberobservations in this regard are being made by this Court.
If the respond ent was really aggrieved by the Judgment dated 24.3.1988 he should have preferred an appeal before this Court and that he did number do but on the other hand he proceeded to file a Review Petition claiming to be reinstated in service on the slender ground that the interim order companyferred on him a right to companytinue in service beyond 30th of August, 1985 even though his service had number been extended by the Gover number of Uttar Pradesh.
In support of the Review Petition the respondent relied on an interim order which had been passed by the High Court during the pendency of the Writ Petition on 10th of July, 1986 which reads thus The post will be kept vacant and in case the petitioner succeeds in his Petition it would be made available forthwith to the petitioner by way of an appointment.
It is number necessary to set out all the reasons given by the High Court for setting aside the order of termination.
The companytention of the respondent was that the said interim order entitled him to be reinstated in service irrespective of the fact whether the Governor had extended the period of his appointment beyond 30th of August, 1985.
Paragraph 2 of the said order of appointment issued on 20th August, 1979 reads thus The appointment shah be on companytract for a period of one year w.e.f.
Again the term was extended upto 30th of August, 1985 by an order dated 1st June, 1983.
In the instant case the respondent was entitled to be in service till 30th of Au guSt, 1985 unless there was a further extention.
It is number disputed that the scheme under which the respond ent had been appointed provided for an appointment by companytract for a specified term which companyld be extended from time to time and that the term of the respondent had been extended on different occasions after his first appointment and he was number entitled to companytinue in service beyond 30th August, 1985 unless there was a further extension.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.7.1988 of the Allahabad High Court in Review Application No.
The true position that emerges from the material on record is that the respondent was employed only under a companytract which specified the term of his appointment which extended only Upto 30th of August, 1985.
A Division Bench of the High Court found that the order of termination that had been served on the respondent was an invalid one since it had been issued on the basis of Vigilance Report and numberopportunity had been given to the respondent to show cause why such action should number be taken against him.
In the circumstances, we feel that while the High Court was right in disposing of the Writ Petition on 24.3.
Under that scheme the ex military officials were appointed on Contract basis for a fixed term which companyld be extended from time to time subject to the suitability of the official companycerned but number beyond 58 years of age.
The respondent was required to furnish his acceptance of the terms and companyditions companytained in the said order includ ing the above term relating to the period of appointment and on his accepting the terms and companyditions he was appointed as the Secretary in the District Soldiers Board in the district of Unnao in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
27 W of 1988.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The High Court allowed the Review PetitiOn on 26.7.1988 and made an order reinstating the Respondent in service which reads as follows This is an application for review of our Judgment dated 24.3.1988 by which we allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner with certain directions.
3 164 of 1985.
The Governor is therefore pleased to accord his sanction to extend the period of the companytract upto the period mentioned under para 5 subject to the companydi tion that their service tenure shall expire on companypletion of 58 years of age in case the same is companypleting earlier during the extended period.
But on 29.3.1985 the service of the 1st Respondent was terminated by the issue of a numberice and payment of one months salary.
The relevant part of the last of such orders, namely, the order dated 1st June, 1983 reads as follows Sir, With reference to your letter No.
The respondent who was number satisfied by the order allow ing the Writ Petition as stated above preferred a Review Petition before the High Court companytending that he was enti tled to be reinstated in service on the pronouncement of the Judgment on 24.3.
The Respondent, Arun Govil had been granted a permanent companymission in the Indian Air Force and was working as a Pilot Officer.
Anil Dev Singh and Mrs. S. Dikshit for the Appellants.
Letters of accept ance of relevant companyditions of service to be obtained from these officers must be submitted to the Government at an early date.
4649 of 1989.
In the year 1972 he was declared unfit by a Medical Board and was, therefore, inval idated from I.A.F. The Government of India issued a scheme for the benefit of ex military officials.
Yogeshwar Prasad, Vijay Hansaria, Sunil K. Jain, S.K. Jain for the Respondents.
The State of Uttar Pradesh also adopted the same scheme.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, CJ.
