- (1.) 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. The Union of India and its Officers are the appellants. 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. He was placed on probation for two years. Before the expiry of the period of probation of two years he received a Memo dt. 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. On July 27, 1978, the Dy. Secretary of the Government of India communicated 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. This communication 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 month's notice at the same rates at which he was, drawing them immediately before the termination of his service. The respondent challenged this Order by filing Writ Petition No. 385 of 1981, before the Calcutta High Court. The main contention 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 notice period was not paid to him along with the notice as required under the terms of his appointment letter. The learned single Judge who heard the Writ Petition declined relief to the respondent and dismissed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved by the said Judgment the respondent filed an appeal. The Division Bench agreed, with the respondent's case that the termination order was bad inasmuch as the full amount of salary and allowances for the notice period was not 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. Hence the appeal.
(2.) The main question debated at the Bar by the respective counsel is whether in the case of the respondent it was incumbent upon the Authorities to pay notice salary along with the termination notice or whether it was sufficient if lie was informed that he was entitled to such salary on his termination. A resolution of this dispute depends upon consideration of the nature and terms of his appointment. To appreciate this, it is necessary to look into the Order of appointment and relevant points of law governing the terms of service.
(3.) The respondent strongly pleaded that he was appointed to a substantive post since he was placed on probation. If his appointment was purely temporary it was not necessary to place him on probation. The case of the appellant on the other hand was that the Order of appointment itself indicated that the respondent was appointed as a temporary hand and that he did not become a regular hand simply because he was put on probation, The termination in this case took place before the expiry of the extended, period of probation which the authority concerned was entitled to do under the relevant rules.;