ORDER A.P. Sen, J. This is a petition by Parshuram Balabbau Kshirsagar under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus against the Chief Justice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh directing him to restore the petitioner to the post of stenographer in the Establishment of the High Court. The facts leading to the petition, shortly stated, are these :-By order of the Chief Justice No. 5849/II-14-1/67, dated 14-8-1967, the petitioner was appointed temporarily, until further orders to officiate as Stenographer in the time scale of Rs. 290-121/2-340-15-370 w. e. f. the date he took over charge and was posted to the High Court Bench Registry at Indore. While he was working as such his services were placed at the disposal of the Education Department temporarily under the Main Registry's Order No. 10234, dated 25-9-68. That was at the request of Shri G. K. Shinde, Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry constituted to enquire into the affairs of the Jabalpur University. It appears that the order regarding his appointment as Stenographer to the Chairman of the said Commission of Inquiry was communicated telegraphically on 5-10-1968 by the Secretary to Government of Madhya Pradesh, Education Department. After the work of the Shinde Commission was completed, the State Government in the Education Department intimated the Main Registry vide Order No. 3623/20/7 dated 29-8-1969 that the services of the petitioner were returned to the High Court and he was relieved of his duties in the Education Department. On his relief the petitioner reported for duty to the Deputy Registrar, High Court Bench Indore. Meanwhile, the temporary post that the petitioner was holding in the Bench Registry appears to have been transferred to the Main Registry vide its Order No. 981/II-14-1/68 dated 28-10-1968. Since there was no vacant post of stenographer in the Bench Registry at Indore, the Deputy Registrar, addressed the following communication to the Main Registry: Indore, dated the 1st Sept., 1969. To The Registrar, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, JABALPUR. Subject:-Deputation of temporary Steno Shri P.B. Kshirsagar in scale of Rs. 290-370/-to Education Department temporarily. Reference:-Main Registry Order No. 10234/11/14-1/68 Dated 25th September, 1968. On the above subject, I am to say that one temporary post of Stenographer was transferred to this Bench Registry vide Main Registry Order dated 30-8-1967 and Shri P. B. Kshirsagar was appointed on this post. Subject:-Deputation of temporary Steno Shri P.B. Kshirsagar in scale of Rs. 290-370/-to Education Department temporarily. Reference:-Main Registry Order No. 10234/11/14-1/68 Dated 25th September, 1968. On the above subject, I am to say that one temporary post of Stenographer was transferred to this Bench Registry vide Main Registry Order dated 30-8-1967 and Shri P. B. Kshirsagar was appointed on this post. Subsequently vide Main Registry Order No. 10234/ dated 25th September 1968 Shri Kshirsagar's services came to be placed at the disposal of the Education Department, and he was relieved from this office on 7-10-1968. By his Order No. 3623/20/7 dated 29th August 1969 received in this office on 30-8-1969 in the afternoon, the Director (College Education) Education Department, Bhopal, has informed that the services of Shri P.B. Kshirsagar Steno are being returned back to the High Court, and he is being relieved. Copy of this order is enclosed for ready reference. Shri Kshirsagar has submitted to this Bench Registry his joining report today along with a copy of communication of the Chairman, University Finance Committee, Indore, addressed to the Director, Collegiate Education, Bhopal. In this connection it is submitted that the temporary post of Stenographer on which Shri Kshirsagar was appointed had been transferred to the establishment of the Main Registry vide Order No. 981/LL-14-1/68 dated the 28th October, 1968. In the circumstances, as there is no post of a Stenographer in this office. Shri P. B. Kshirsagar is being asked to report himself for duty to the Registrar High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur without any delay. Necessary orders, when passed in the matter may be communicated to this Bench Registry. Sd/- R. K. Seth Deputy Registrar. Endt. No. 7696/Indore, dated the 1st Sept. 1969. Copy forwarded to Shri P. B. Kshirsagar, Steno for information and necessary action. As the post on which he was appointed has been transferred to the Main Registry of High Court during the period of his deputation he cannot be allowed to join in this Bench Registry. Sd/- R. K. Seth Deputy Registrar. While the petitioner was still working with the Shinde Commission of Inquiry, the Chief Justice appears to have passed the Order No. 984/11-14-1 /68 dated 28-10-1968 to the following effect: No. 984/II-14-1/68 : Shri T. P. Shrivastava, Permanent Stenographer in the time scale of Rs. Sd/- R. K. Seth Deputy Registrar. While the petitioner was still working with the Shinde Commission of Inquiry, the Chief Justice appears to have passed the Order No. 984/11-14-1 /68 dated 28-10-1968 to the following effect: No. 984/II-14-1/68 : Shri T. P. Shrivastava, Permanent Stenographer in the time scale of Rs. 150-265 is appointed temporarily until farther orders to officiate as Stenographer in the time scale of Rs. 290-370, with effect from the date he takes over charge of his duties, vice Shri P.B. Kshirsagar, whose services have been placed at the disposal of the Education Department temporarily. On a plain reading of the Order, it is clear that T. P. Shrivastava was appointed only temporarily until further orders, to officiate on the post held by the petitioner as his services had been placed at the disposal of the Education Department temporarily. The appointment of T. P. Shrivastava was, therefore, of a purely temporary nature. Surprisingly enough, when the petitioner reported for duty at the Main Registry, the Registry put up the following note before the Chief Justice For facts of the case, kindly see the office note dated 3-9-69 on pre-page. As will be seen from the statement there is no post of Stenographer against which Shri P. B. Kshirsagar can be allowed to resume duties in the Registry. He was appointed purely in a temporary capacity. The mere fact that his services were placed at the disposal of the Education Department would not place him in a position better than that of a temporary hand who does not hold any lien on the post. All that we can do for him is to put his name on the list of approved candidates for appointment as Stenographers. Inform him accordingly. Sd/- B. D. 8-9-69 C.J. Sd/- S. J. Surana Registrar 8-9-69. It appears that the attention of the Chief Justice was not drawn to the letter of the Deputy Registrar dated 1-9-1969. The note put up by the Registrar was totally misleading. There was no question of any lien, nor one of absorption. Unfortunately, the Chief Justice was entirely guided by the note of the Registrar and accorded his approval to the action proposed. The letters "B. D." we are informed, stand for the signature of the Chief Justice. The note put up by the Registrar was totally misleading. There was no question of any lien, nor one of absorption. Unfortunately, the Chief Justice was entirely guided by the note of the Registrar and accorded his approval to the action proposed. The letters "B. D." we are informed, stand for the signature of the Chief Justice. Thereafter, the Additional Registrar, Jabalpur sent the following letter to the Deputy Registrar: No. 7060/II-14-1/68 Benches Jabalpur, the 9th September 1969 Bhadra 1991. To The Deputy Registrar, High Court of M. P. Indore Bench, Indore. Subject :-Deputation of temporary Stenographer Shri P.B. Kshirsagar in scale of Rs. 290-370 to Education Department temporarily. I am to refer to your memo No. 7698, dated the 1st September 1960 and to say that Shri P. B. Kshirsagar, Stenographer was appointed in purely temporary capacity and as such he had no lien on the post after his services were placed at the disposal of the Education Department. The question of his absorption in the Registry, therefore, does not arise. His game is however being kept on the list of approved candidates for appointment as Stenographer. Sd./-G.P. Singh Additional Registrar. The petitioner made a representation for reinstatement to the post that he was holding; but the same was rejected. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is, whether the termination of the service of the petitioner was valid and in conformity with the requirements of Rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-Permanent Service) Rules, 1960. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is, whether the termination of the service of the petitioner was valid and in conformity with the requirements of Rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-Permanent Service) Rules, 1960. That rule reads as follows: 12 (a) Subject to any provision contained in the order of appointment or in any agreement between the government and the temporary government servant, 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: 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, or as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month or any agreed longer period: Provided further that the payment of allowances shall be subject to the conditions under which such allowances are admissible. (b) The period of such notice shall be one month unless otherwise agreed between the Government and the Government servant. Admittedly, there is no compliance by the Chief Justice of the requirements of this Rule. The learned Advocate-General, who appeared for the Chief Justice as well as for the State, strenuously contended that the petitioner is not governed by the provision of Rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-Permanent Service) Rules, 1960. The Submission is that under Article 229 of the Constitution the Chief Justice is the supreme authority in the matter of appointments of officers and servants of the High Court. Reference has been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in M. Gurumnorthy v. The Accountant General, Assam and Nagaland and others, A I R 1971 S. C. 1850. It is urged that the petitioner is not a Government servant but a member of the ministerial staff of the High Court and therefore subject to the orders of the Chief Justice. It is urged that the petitioner is not a Government servant but a member of the ministerial staff of the High Court and therefore subject to the orders of the Chief Justice. Emphasis was laid on the words "until further orders" in the appointment order of the petitioner and it was urged that the transfer of the petitioner to the Education Department by the Chief Justice was tantamount to termination of his service. Or at any rate, the refusal of the Chief Justice to take him back in the service of the High Court amounted to a repudiation of the contract of employment. It was also urged that the petitioner was governed by the law of master and servant. It was stated that the word "termination" is not a term of art and there was no magic in that word. In support of his submission, the learned Advocate-General placed reliance on the following observations of Mc. Cardie J. in re Ruhal Bronsa Metal Company, Limited and Vos. (1918) 1 K. B. 315 at p. 323. Dismissal may be effected by conduct as well as words. A man may dismiss his servant if he refuses by word or conduct to allow the servant to fulfill his contract of employment. The refusal must of course be substantial in the sense that it is not a mere repudiation of some minor rights of the servant or of non-vital provisions of the contract of employment. The question is ever one of degree. If the conduct of the employer amounts to a basic refusal to continue the servant on the agreed terms of the employment, then there is at once a wrongful dismissal and repudiation of the contract. I see no distinction in such a case as the present between repudiation by the defendants of their contractual obligations and 'a wrongful dismissal' in the ordinary sense of that phrase. There is no dispute with that proposition and the observation of Mc Cardie J. have been followed with approved by this Court in Parasharsingh v. Hindustan Manganese Mines Ltd and others 1968 M P L J 846. There is no warrant for the contention advanced by the learned Advocate General that the placing of the services of the petitioner at the disposal of the Education Department by the Chief Justice amounted to termination of his service. The noting of the Chief Justice was clear enough. There is no warrant for the contention advanced by the learned Advocate General that the placing of the services of the petitioner at the disposal of the Education Department by the Chief Justice amounted to termination of his service. The noting of the Chief Justice was clear enough. The services of the petitioner were not terminated but were only placed at the disposal of the Education Department: Shri Kshirsagar's services may be placed at the disposal of Education Department temporarily. Sd/-P. V. Dixit 24-9-68. The relevant Order reads as follows: No. 1034/ Date, Jabalpur, the 25th September, 1968, 3rd Ashvina, 1890. The services of Shri P.B. Kshirsagar temporary stenographer in the scale of 290-12 1/2-340-15-3-70 on the establishment of the Bench Registry at Indore are placed at the disposal of the Education Department temporarily w. e. f. the date of his relief. By Order of the Honourable the Chief Justice Sd/- S. J. Surana Registrar. Equally futile is the contention that the services of the petitioner were not governed by the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-Permanent Service) Rules, 1960. The Chief Justice has to function within the framework of Article 229 of the Constitution and the Rules made there under. The Officer and servants of the High Court are not the personal servants of the Chief Justice. Their service cannot be terminated except in accordance with law. The learned Advocate-General is not right in saying that there are no rules framed under Article. 229 of the Constitution. In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 229(2), the Chief Justice by Order No. 7056-11-14-32-36-1, dated 12-7-1960, directed with the previous approval of the Governor, that the conditions of service of the officers and servants of the High Court shall be the same as were or are applicable to persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State of Madhya Pradesh, in the matter of pay, allowance, etc. The Order was published in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra dated 12-8-1960 and it reads: Jabalpur, the 12th July, 1960, Asadha 21, 1882 No. 7056-II-14-82-36-I. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (2) of Article 229 of the Constitution and with the previous approval of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh, the Honorable the Chief Justice is pleased to direct that the conditions of service of officers and servants of the High Court, so far as salaries and additions to salaries, allowances including traveling allowance, leave, pensions including retirement benefits, medical attendance and provident fund are concerned, shall be the same as were or are applicable to persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State of Madhya Pradesh, except as otherwise hitherto ordered and hereafter be ordered by the Honorable the Chief Justice with the approval of the Governor; Provided that the authority which administers or relaxes any condition or rule for the officers and servants of the High Court shall be the Honourable the Chief Justice. By Order of the Honourable the Chief Justice, Sd/- Surajbhan Registrar. So far as the termination of services of temporary employees in the High Court is concerned, the matter is clearly governed by the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-Permanent Service) Rules, 1960. These Rules were adopted by Order of the Chief Justice dated 23-6-1960. The services of the petitioner could not, therefore, be terminated except in accordance with Rule 12 thereof. Under that Rule the service could not be terminated except by giving one month's notice in writing or by payment of one month's salary in lieu thereof. Such service could always be terminated by either manner, whenever the Chief Justice thinks it necessary, or considers it expedient for administrative reasons. The discretion is necessarily left to the Chief Justice. It is impossible to define before hand all the circumstances in which that discretion can be exercised. (Ram Gopal Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1969 M P L J 706 (S C) : A I R 1970 S C 158). But the power of termination must be exercised in due conformity with the requirements of Rule 12. It is impossible to define before hand all the circumstances in which that discretion can be exercised. (Ram Gopal Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1969 M P L J 706 (S C) : A I R 1970 S C 158). But the power of termination must be exercised in due conformity with the requirements of Rule 12. In Senior Superintendent, R.M. S., Cochin and another v. K. V. Gopinath, Sorter A I R 1972 S C 1487, Mitter J., speaking on behalf of their Lordships, while interpreting the corresponding provision in the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1958 observed- Rule 5 (1) (a) gives the Government as well as the employee a right to put an end to the service by a notice in writing. Under rule 1 (b) the period prescribed for such notice is one month. The proviso to sub-rule (b) however gives the Government an additional right in that it gives an option to the Government not to retain the service of the employee till the expiry of the period of the notice; if it so chooses to terminate the service at any time it can do so 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 rate 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. At the risk of repetition we may note that the operative words of the proviso are 'the services of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith by payment'. To put the matter in a nutshell, to be effective the termination of service has to be simultaneous with the payment to the employee of whatever is due to him. Applying these principles to the facts of the present case we have no manner of doubt that there was no valid termination of the service of the petitioner in compliance with the requirements of Rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-Permanent Service) Rules, 1960. There was no termination of his service by giving him one month's notice in writing; nor was there any payment of one month's salary in lieu thereof. The result, therefore, is that the petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. There was no termination of his service by giving him one month's notice in writing; nor was there any payment of one month's salary in lieu thereof. The result, therefore, is that the petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The order of the Chief Justice dated 3 9-1969 and the consequential communication of the Additional Registrar vide Memo No. 7060/II-14-1/68 Benches, dated 9-9-1969 are quashed. A writ of mandamus shall issue to the Chief Justice, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, to reinstate the petitioner forthwith to his temporary post of Stenographer in the time scale of Rs. 290-12-340-15-370, w. e. f. the date on which he reported to duty at the Bench Registry at Indore. Hearing fee Rs. 100 (one hundred) if certified. The security deposit be refunded to the petitioner after verification. Petition allowed.