( 1 ) A common question calls for decision in these four writt petitions. Hence, they shall stand disposed of by this order. ( 2 ) ALL the petitioners were compulsorily retired from service by the orders made under Note I to Rule 285 of the Mysore Civil Service Regulation. 1958 they were served with the orders without pavment of their salary in lieu of three months notice. They were paid a couple of days later. On these facts it, was urged for the petitioners, that the orders of their retirement were illegal and inoperative. The contention in other wards was that an order made under Note 1 to Rule 285 should accompany the pavment of salary for three months in lieu of notice. In support of the coptention, reliance was tilled on the decision of the Supreme Court in sonio Superin endent, RMS v. K. V. Gopinath, AIR 1972 SC. 1487 . ( 3 ) TO appreciate the contention, it is necessary to set out Note 1 to rule 285. It reads :" Government may by order, retire any Government servant after he has completed 25 years of qualifying service or after he has attained 50 years of age, if such retirement is in their opinion necessary in the public interest, provided that Government servant concerned is given notice of three months before the date of retirement, or in lieu of such notice, a sum equivalent to the amount of his salary for a period of three months but the pension shall not be payable for the period in respect of which he receives salary in lieu of notice. "by this rule, the Government has the discretion in the public interest to retire any Government, servant afcer he has completed 25 years of qualifying service or after attaining 50 years of age. The rule further provides that the Government servant should be given notice of three months before the date of retirement or in lieu of such notice, a sum equivalent to the amount of his salary for the said period of notice. ( 4 ) THE rule does not state that where no notice is given, the payment of salary for the notice period should be simultaneous with the passing of the order of retirement; nor it is possible for me to construe the rule by that terms. ( 4 ) THE rule does not state that where no notice is given, the payment of salary for the notice period should be simultaneous with the passing of the order of retirement; nor it is possible for me to construe the rule by that terms. All that the rule provides is that if no statutory notice is given before making an order of retirement, the Government servant shall be paid salary for the notice period. The payment of the said sum, it seems to me, is consequential to the passing of the order of retirement and cannot be held to be a condition to make the order of retirement to be effective. ( 5 ) THE decision of the Supreme Court in K. V. Gopinath's case (1) is clearly distinguishable. In that case, the Supreme Court was considering the scope and effect of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary service) Rules, 1965. The said Rule 5 so far as it is relevant provides :" 5. Termination of temporary service.- (1) (a) The services of a temporary Government servant who is not in quasi-permanent service shall be liable to termination at any time by a 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; provided that the services 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 at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his services, or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month. " ( 6 ) THE Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the rule is capable of only one interpretation that the orders of termination can be upheld if the requisite amount in terms of the rule is paid into the hands of the employee or made available to him at the time of serving the order. The decision was based on the operative words of the proviso, i. e. , "the services of any Government servant may be terminated forthwith by payment ". The decision was based on the operative words of the proviso, i. e. , "the services of any Government servant may be terminated forthwith by payment ". In other words " the termination forthwith " is to be " by payment to the Government servant" of the sum mentioned. Therefore it was held that payment is a condition of the termination of service forthwith. Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, is not in pari materia with Note 1 to Rule 285 of the Mysore Civil Services rules. Therefore the ratio of the said decision cannot be of any assistance for the petitioners. ( 7 ) I therefore see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. ( 8 ) IN the result, these petitions fail and are dismissed, but no costs. --- *** --- .