Short Note : 1. The petitioner was appointed as a temporary Sub-Overseer sometime in 1972. Thereafter he applied for the post of Overseer. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Overseer by order dated 6th February 1973. The petitioner's services were terminated with immediate effect by order dated 4th December 1970. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the order terminating his services. Held : Having heard learned counsel, we are of opinion that this petition must be allowed. The petitioner's services have been terminated under rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-Permanent Services) Rules, 1960. This rule provides that 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. There is a proviso to the rule which says, that the services of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith by payment to him a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of notice. The period of notice is also provided by Clause (b) to the rule. It says that the period of notice shall be one month unless otherwise agreed between the Government and the Government servant. The petitioner's order of appointment as Overseer is Annexure R-IV. Clause (b) of this order says that the petitioner will be liable to be discharged by giving one month's notice or one month's pay and allowances in lieu thereof. The order of appointment, therefore, shows that there is no contrary term or condition contained in it dispensing with notice or payment of notice pay as referred by rule 12. It has been held in a number of cases that if the Government wants to terminate the services of a temporary Government servant forthwith, he must be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay for the period of notice. In the absence of any such payment, which should be made at the time when the services are terminated, the order of termination is invalid. In the absence of any such payment, which should be made at the time when the services are terminated, the order of termination is invalid. We may, in this connection, refer to a recent decision of this Court in Naval Kishore Khare v. The State of M. P. & another (Misc. petition No. 647 of 1972, decided on 4th October 1977). As the petitioner was not given one month's notice before termination of his employment and as he was also not paid any notice ray at the time when his services were terminated, the order terminating his services is patently invalid being in contravention of rule 12 of the Rules. Misc. Petition No, 647 of 1972 decided on 14th October 77, relied on. Petition allowed.