Termination of service without one month’s salary, would be irregularity, which can be rectified by directing authority to pay one month's salary in lieu of one month’s notice
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that terminating the employee without one month's salary would be irregular and can be rectified by directing authority to pay one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice.
A petitioner who was appointed on probation for two years on the post of Constable, disengaged from service on the ground of remaining unauthorisedly absent from duties and not submitting his joining thereafter. Petitioner was unable to join duty due to sickness of his father.
One of the conditions of the appointment order was that in the light of Rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-permanent Service) Rules, 1960, the services of the petitioner can be discontinued by giving one month's notice or one month's advance salary in lieu thereof. Services of a temporary Government employee are liable to be terminated 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. Provided that the services of any Government servant may be terminated forthwith and on such termination, the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before such termination or as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month.
Petitioner was neither given one month's notice; nor paid one month's salary in advance in lieu of notice.
The High Court held that the use of words “is entitled to claim'' clearly indicates that the instant termination without one month's salary would be an irregularity and can be rectified by directing the authorities to pay one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice.
Appearing counsel/s- Shri Prashant Sharma, Shri Varun Kaushik
