B.C. Mitra, J. - (1.) The question involved in this application is if the order terminating the petitioner's service is invalid, as the respondent No. 2 had no power or authority to make such an order.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed a clerk in the A.R.P. Unit of the Calcutta Port on September 1, 1944, He was thereafter transferred to the Traffic Department in the Port of Calcutta on April 2, 1946, and was posted as a Shed Clerk-He was confirmed on August 1, 1947.
(3.) In 1945 The respondent No. 5 adopted a set of rules known as 'Further conditions of service" relating to its employees. It is common case that these rules were not approved by the Central Government as required by sub-section (3) of Section 31 of the Calcutta Port Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is admitted by the petitioner that a copy of the 1955 rules was served upon him on September 17, 1948, and he subscribed to these rules by affixing his signature thereto. Subsequently in 1959 the respondent No. 5 adopted a fresh set of rules known as "Further Conditions of Service". These rules were approved by the Central Government. It is alleged by the petitioner that the Commissioners had also adopted the Fundamental rules, as rules, regulating the terms of service of the officers and servants of the respondent No. 5. It is claimed by the petitioner that being a class III employee he is entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 58 years under the Fundamental Rules 1956.;