Case: Mohan Singh Malhi Vs. State Of Punjab

Before the partition of the country, the appellant joined the Veterinary Department of the Punjab Government as an Assistant Surgeon on December 1, 1933. In course of time, he was appointed as Director of Animal Husbandry and Warden of Fisheries which post he held from March 16, 1957 to August 14 , 1959, when Shri Pritarn Singh Brar was appointed Director in his place. On Shri Pritam Singh Brars attaining the age of superannuation, the appellant was again appointed as Director, Animal Husbandry, on regular basis on August 4, 1965. On September 2 , 1967, the appellant was served with the followingGovernor of Punjab is pleased to retire Shri Mohan Singh Malhi, P.V.S.I. Director, Animal Husbandry, Punjab, Chandigarh with effect from the date of communication to him of this order on payment of three months salary and allowances in lieu of notice required by rule 5.32(c) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II."2. Shri Harbhajan Singh Saini, Technical Expert Po ultry is hereby directed to relieve Shri Mohan Singh Malhi.S. S. GREWALSecretary to Government PunjabAnimal Husbandry DepartmentChandigarh,Dated the 2nd Sept. 67"No. 3840/AH(I)-67/6213 Chandigarh dated the 2nd Sept. 1967 A copy is forwarded to Shri Mohan Singh Malhi,this order, the appellant made several representations which did not evoke a favourable response. Eventually, he approached the High Court on March 18, 1968, by means of a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issue of an appropriate writ quashing the aforesaid order dated September 2, 1967, and declaring that he still continued to be in service. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the appellants petition by judgment and order dated April 22, 1968, and quashed the aforesaid order retiring the appellant from service. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Single Judge, the State of Punjab preferred a Letters Patent Appeal. The Bench hearing the appeal referred the above mentioned question for decision to a Full Bench of the Court. On December 18, 1969, the Full Bench by majority answered the question referred to it in the affirmative. Thereupon the appellant applied for and obtained a certificate of fitness to appeal to this Court. This is how the appeal is before us.

Reasoning:
It will be noticed that the Rule as reproduced above merely provides for a contingency in which a retiring pension is to be granted to a Government servant. Assuming that the rule by implication requires three months notice to be given to a Government servant of the description referred to therein before retiring him from service, we are unable to understand how that requirement can be said to be violated if instead of three months notice, payment of three months salary and allowances is made to him. The object of the notice, as well known, is to give sufficient time to the Government servant whom it is intended to retire from service to find employment elsewhere and to prevent his being suddenly left in lurch without any means of livelihood. If that be the object of the notice, no prejudice can be said to be caused to the Government servant if in lieu of three months notice, he is given three months salary and allowances. In fact, he is put in a more advantageous position by being paid three months salary and allowances instead of notice for that period as he is thereby relieved of the obligation to spend his time in the office attending to his duty and gets all the time to himself which he can utilize in finding an alternative job or settling his affairs. Thus we are of opinion that if the appointing authority wants to exercise its right to retire a Government servant other than a Class IV Government servant who has attained the age of 55 years, there is nothing to debar it from validly doing so by payment to him of a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay and allowances for the period of the notice.For the foregoing reasons, we are unable to interfere with the majority view of the Full Bench of the High Court.