JUDGMENT K.K. Mathew, J. 1. The petitioner who is an employee in the Post and Telegraphs Department has filed this petition praying for quashing Ext. P-1 order passed by the 1st respondent terminating his services, by the issue of an appropriate writ or order. 2. The 2nd respondent issued a circular on 12-9-1968 directing his subordinates to take action against every employee who was absent from duty on 19-9-1968. The petitioner being absent from duty on that day his services were terminated by the 1st respondent with effect from the 26th September, 1968 under R.5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Services) R.1965, hereinafter called the Rules, by Ext. P-1 order. The order states: "In pursuance of the proviso to sub-r.(1) of R.5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) R.1965 I hereby terminate forthwith the services of Shri. K. V. Gopinath Ty, Sorter H. R. O., Cochin-16 (name and designation) and directs that he shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of pay and allowances for a period of one month (in lieu of the period of notice) calculated at the same rate at which he was drawing them immediately before the date on which this order is served on or, as the case may be, tendered to him." 3. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that his services were not terminated by paying one month's pay and allowances as required by the proviso to sub-r.(b) of R.5 of the Rules, and so Ex: P-1 order is bad. Petitioner contends that it was only on the 28th that the disbursing officer was given intimation of Ext. P-1 order, and supplied with the necessary funds, and that even if the petitioner had known on the date of Ext. P-1 that he will be able to get the one month's pay and allowances from the disbursing officer , he would not have got it as that officer had no intimation about Ext. P-1 order, nor was he supplied with the necessary funds before the 28th. R.5 of the Rules provides: "5(a) The service of a temporary Government servant who is not in quasi permanent service shall be liable to termination at any time by notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority, or by the appointing authority to the Government servant. R.5 of the Rules provides: "5(a) The service of a temporary Government servant who is not in quasi permanent service shall be liable to termination at any time by notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority, or by the appointing authority to the Government servant. (b) The period of such notice shall be one month unless otherwise agreed to by the Government and by the Government servant: Provided that the service of any such Government servant [may be terminated forthwith by payment to him of a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month or any agreed longer period: * * * * The one month's pay and allowances were sent by M. O. to the petitioner on 9th October 1968. The question for consideration is whether payment of one month's pay and allowances should have been made or offered simultaneously with the termination of the services of the petitioner by Ext. P-1 order. The wording of the proviso to the rule appears to be clear that it is only by the payment that the services can be terminated forthwith. In support of the contention that his services could have been terminated only by payment of one month's pay and allowances, petitioner's counsel referred me to the ruling in Balagopalan v. State of Kerala ( 1963 KLT 1167 ) In that case a Division Bench of this Court had to consider a similar question, and the court held that payment of one month's salary was a condition precedent for a valid termination of the service of the petitioner there. The court followed the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha ( AIR 1960 SC 610 ). In that case the Supreme Court dealt with the question whether there can be a valid retrenchment under S.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act without payment of me month's notice pay as required by that section, and held that payment of one month's notice pay is a condition precedent for the retrenchment, and that non compliance with the said condition would render the retrenchment invalid and inoperative. In National Iron & Steel Co. In National Iron & Steel Co. v. State of West Bengal (1967 2 LLJ 23, 29), where a similar question arose for consideration, the Court observed: "Learned counsel further argued that the tribunal had gone wrong to hold that the retrenchment was illegal as S.25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act had not been complied with. Under that section a workman employed in any industry should not be retrenched until he had been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and period of notice had expired, or the workman had been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice. The notice in this case bears the date 15 November 1958. It is to the effect that the addressee's services were terminated with effect from 17 November and that he would get one month's wages in lieu of notice of termination of his service. The workman was further asked to collect his dues from the cash office on 20 November 1958 or thereafter during the working hours. Manifestly, S.25F, had not been complied with under which it was incumbent on the employer to pay the workman, the wages for the period of the notice in lieu of the notice. That is to say, if he was asked to go forthwith he had to be paid at the time when he was asked to go and could not be asked to collect his dues afterwards." In Vine Kumar Majoo v. State of Rajastan (1968 2 LLJ 398, 405) the order retrenching an employee under S.25F, stated that all retrenched engineering subordinates shall get one month's notice pay. The court held: "In view of the language of this order it cannot be said that it was an advance notice for termination of the employment. That in fact was a direction for the payment of one month's notice pay. One month's notice pay is required to be paid when an employer does not wish to serve the advance notice as required, but in lieu thereof he chooses to pay one month's wages, Now it may be open to an employer not to give a notice, but in that event it will be incumbent on him to pay one month's wages in lieu of notice, that is, for the period of the notice, This is to be done before the actual retrenchment. It is to precede the retrenchment and not to follow it. This has obviously not been done in the present case and, therefore, the condition precedent for the retrenchment envisaged by S.25 F of the Act has not been fulfilled and this invalidates the order of retrenchment itself." I see no reason to distinguish this case from the Division Bench ruling of this Court reported in Balagopalan v. State of Kerala,( 1963 KLT 1167 ) which followed the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha ( AIR 1960 SC 610 ). I quash Ext. P-1 order and allow the writ petition. I make no order as to costs.