JUDGMENT 1. Jokhu Ram, the respondent, was appointed as a Loco Substitute, Class 'A', in the Eastern Railway at Danapur. After six month's continuous service, he became entitled to rights and privileges of a temporary railway servant on October 11, 1967. He was, however, considered medically unfit for the appointment and on June 28, 1969 the Divisional Personnel Officer, Danapur asked the Loco Foreman, Eastern Railway, Mughalsarai, where the respondent was working, to delete his name from the list of substitutes. The respondent felt aggrieved. He filed a claim under the payment of wages Act for recovery of 40 months wages between November 5, 1968 and March 4, 1972. It is not disputed that on September 5, 1972, the Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Danapur, passed a formal order terminating the respondent's services. This order was served on the respondent. 2. The Prescribed Authority allowed the claim. Aggrieved, the petitioner namely, the Divisional Accounts Officer, filed an appeal which was dismissed. The officer has come to this Court. 3. Learned counsel submitted that under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, the claim has to be preferred within 12 months. A claim of 40 months was not maintainable. Under the proviso, the Prescribed Authority was competent to condone the delay if there was sufficient cause for it. In the present case the Prescribed Authority held that the order of termination of the respondent's services was passed and served in September, 1972. He will hence be treated to be in service till that time. The claim for illegal deduction of wages was hence not barred by time. He was of the opinion that the order directing the Foreman to delete the name of the petitioner from the list of substitutes was not legally effective as termination of respondent's services. 4. Adverting to the plea of limitation, the appellate court also held that there was sufficient cause for the delay It observed that the respondent had become a temporary employee and, as such, he was entitled to notice of termination. No such notice was served on the petitioner till the institution of the claim. He, hence, could validly feel that he was still in service. There was, hence, sufficient cause for the delay in filing the claim. 5. No such notice was served on the petitioner till the institution of the claim. He, hence, could validly feel that he was still in service. There was, hence, sufficient cause for the delay in filing the claim. 5. Having heard learned counsel, I am not satisfied that the finding on this point recorded by the courts below suffers from any manifest error of law. 6. Learned counsel submitted that because the respondent's services were terminated on account of medical unfitness, there was no requirement to give him one month's notice. Be that as it may, but it was certainly necessary to serve an order of termination of service on the respondent before the petitioner could treat that he was no longer in railway service. It is not disputed that after six month's continuous service the respondent had acquired the rights of a temporary servant. The services have to be terminated by an order in writing. His services cannot be deemed to have been automatically terminated. So even though a month's notice was not needed an order of termination was certainly required to be served. Admittedly such an order was served only in September, 1972. Hence it could not legitimately be said that the petitioner did not rightly think that he continued in service till the lodging of the claim in March, 1972. 7. The petition has no substance and is accordingly dismissed. (Petition dismissed)