E.S.VENKATARAMIAH - (1.) THE Respondent Arun. Govil had been granted a .permanent commission in. the Indian Air Force and was working as a Pilot Officer. In the year 1972 he was declared unfit by a Medical Board and Was, therefore, invalidated from I.A.F. THE Government of India issued a scheme for the benefit of ex-military officials. THE State of Uttar Pradesh also adopted the same scheme. Under that scheme the ex-military officials were appointed on Contract basis for a fixed term which could be extended from time to time subject to the suitability of the official concerned but not beyond 58 years of age. 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. Paragraph 2 of the said order of appointment issued on 20/08/1979 reads thus: "THE appointment shall be on contract for a period of one year w.e.f. the date of assumption if it is not terminated earlier by giving a one month's notice by the Hon'ble Governor or on paying one month's salary in lieu thereof or by giving one month's notice by the Officer."
(2.) THE respondent was required to furnish his acceptance of the terms and conditions. contained in the said order including the above term relating to the period of appointment and on his accepting the terms and conditions he was appointed as the Secretary in the District Soldiers Board in the district of Unnao in the State of Uttar Pradesh. THE said term was extended retrospectively, first up to 20/08/1982 by an order passed in September, 1981 and it was again extended up to 31/03/1983 by an order made in February, 1983. Again the term was extended up to 30th of August, 1983 by an order, dated Ist June, 1983. All these orders of extension were couched almost in the same language. THE relevant part of the last of such orders, namely, the order dated Ist June, 1983 reads as follows: "Sir, with reference to your letter No. 1020/Sa.Pa.-A.D.M./141, Dated 31-3-1982 on the above subject 1 am directed to say that the term of the officers mentioned under para-2 who were appointed w.e.f the date mentioned. in para-4 (has expired). THE Governor is therefore pleased to accord his sanction to extend the period of the contract up to the period mentioned under para 5 subject to the condition, that their service tenure shall expire on completion of 58 years of age in case the same is completed earlier during the extended period. JUDGEMENT_593_SUPP2_1989Html1.htm 2. During the extended period of the contract conditions of service of officers shall remain same as are mentioned under their Appointment Order. Letters of acceptance of relevant conditions of service to be obtained from these officers must be submitted to the Government at an early date." It is thus seen that the appointment of the respondent was indisputably in the nature of contract and under the last order of appointment referred to above he was entitled to continue in office in the post in question till 30th of August, 1985 and not beyond that date unless there was a further extension. But on 29-3-1985 the service of the Ist respondent was terminated by the issue of a notice and payment of one month's salary. The order was to be effective from the date of receipt of termination order and no charges were mentioned therein against the Ist. respondent.
(3.) THE respondent aggrieved by the said order of termination filed a Writ Petition on the file of the High Court of Allahabad in writ petition No. 3164 of 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 no opportunity had been given to the respondent to show cause why such action should not be taken against him. It is not, necessary to set out all the reasons given by the High Court for setting aside the order of termination. THE High Court, however, held that the termination order could not be sustained and the Writ Petition was liable to be allowed. 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. In the instant case the respondent was entitled to be in service till 30th of August, 1985 unless there was a further extension. In the penultimate paragraph of the judgment the High Court further stated : "It is open for the opposite parties to consider the claim of the petitioner for continuation in service or-of fresh appointment and no observations in this regard are being made by this Court." The judgment was delivered on 24-3-1988.;