Short Note : 1. The petitioner was appointed temporarily as a field worker in connection with the family planning programme in the Health Department on a pay scale of Rs. 110-5-160-EB-6-190 by the order Annexure-A dated 21-11-1968. While he was continuing in that capacity being designated as a Family Planning Health Assistant, the respondent No.2 passed the order Annexure-E dated 11-7-1972 terminating the petitioner's service as no longer required with immediate effect. The petitioner contends that this act was in breach of rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi Permanent Service) Rules, 1960, which prescribes that the service of a temporary employee can be terminated only by one month's prior notice or by payment made in lieu thereof. 2. Held : In the present case, admittedly, no simultaneous payment was made so that one of the two modes prescribed by the rule for validly terminating the petitioner's service was not resorted to. The only other mode by way of a prior notice of at least one month also was not adopted. An attempt was made by the learned Deputy Government Advocate to rely on Annexure R-1 dated 24-1-1972 to suggest that this document fulfilled the requirement of the requisite notice under rule 12. We are unable to accept this argument. The document though called a notice was for the purpose of asking the petitioner to improve his performance within a month, adding thereafter that in case no improvement was made by him within that period, strict disciplinary action would be taken against him and his temporary services would be terminated. We cannot accept such a document as the prior notice contemplated by rule 12. The notice required by that rule obviously must be one which in clear and unequivocal terms intimates the employee that his services would stand terminated on a specified date which is at least one month after that notice. The possibility of the employment continuing after the specified date should be completely ruled out by such a notice. This basic requirement is also not fulfilled by this document. It only threatens the commencement of some disciplinary action against the petitioner and that too in case he did not improve his performance within the period of one month. The possibility of the employment continuing after the specified date should be completely ruled out by such a notice. This basic requirement is also not fulfilled by this document. It only threatens the commencement of some disciplinary action against the petitioner and that too in case he did not improve his performance within the period of one month. At any rate, it gave no indication that by itself that document was the last communication and without anything more being done by the employer, the petitioner's service would stand automatically terminated on a date specified therein after a period of one month thereof. Without fulfilling this basic requirement needed for a valid notice under rule 12, there can be no question of construing Annexure R-1 as valid notice contemplated under rule 12. The only argument advanced in support of the action taken by the learned Deputy Government Advocate, therefore, fails and is rejected. AIR 1972 SC 1487 , relied on. AIR 1975 SC 536 and AIR 1975 SC 1116 , referred to. Petition allowed.