STATE OF BOMBAY Vs. N T ADVANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State against the decree passed by the City Civil Court, for a sum of Rs. 8062-2-0 made against it in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) The short facts in the case are as follows: The plaintiff entered the service of the State in 1933 as an Assistant Director of Public Health, and was in due course confirmed as a permanent holder of the office. He was due to retire at the age of 55 on the 18th of October 1953. He says in the plaint that in the ordinary course, he would have been promoted to the post of the Director of Public Health in about February 1953 but as he was due to retire within about seven months, he agreed to work as a Junior Malariologist in the same Department and he was assured by his superior officers that even after superannuation he would be continued in service from 18th October 1953 to 13th March 1955. On 14th October, 1953, before due date of his retirement, Government issued an order as follows:

(3.) The Notification in respect of the same was published in the Government Gazette and this order or direction was communicated, to the plaintiff, the Asistant Director of Public Health, Malaria, at Poona and also to the Accountant General, Bombay, as required by law. In pursuance to this order, which he accepted, he continued to work as a Junior Malariologist, when on 8th of May 1954 he was informed by the Director of Public Health that his services would be terminated. He made representations to the Government for continuance of his service but ultimately on 2nd of June 1954, he was relieved of his office and another gentleman was appointed to lake charge from him. In answer to his representation, the Government wrote to him that he was re-employed as a Junior Malariologist on a purely temporary basis and though the order of his re-employment specified that he was to be in service up to 13th March 1955, it was open to the Government to determine his appointment before the expiry of the said period. The plaintiff alleged that he was relieved from service without proper authority, that there was no order or notification by the Government terminating his service, that he could only be discharged from service by an authority competent to appoint him and that the termination of his service was in violation of the Service Rules and Article 311 of the Constitution and was ultra vires, wrongful and void. In the result, he claimed damages amounting to Rs. 8062-2-0. The plaintiff also contended that in any event, the order made by the Director of Public Health on the 8th of May 1954 and another dated 21st June 1954 did not amount to termination of his service and therefore he was entitled to the balance of his pay, for the period in dispute.