(1) LEAVE granted. (2) HEARD on merits. (3) THE respondent was appointed temporarily and was governed by the U.P. Temporary government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. According to Rule 4(2, the period of notice for termination of the temporary service was one month subject to the proviso which reads as under: "(2 The period of notice shall be one month: Provided that the service of any such government servant may be terminated forthwith, and on such termination the government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances, if any, for the period of the notice or as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his services:" (4) ON termination of respondents service, he challenged the same in the High court. The High court has set aside the termination on the ground that the notice as required by Rule 4 was not given prior to termination of the service on account of which the termination itself was bad. It appears that the respondent in his writ petition had raised some other grounds to challenge the termination, but the same were not considered in view of the writ petition being allowed on this ground alone. This appeal by special leave is against that judgment. (5) WE have no doubt that the High court overlooked the impact of the proviso contained in clause (2 of Rule 4 which is sufficient to indicate that the requirement of such a notice was not a condition precedent for a valid termination but it had the effect of making the government servant entitled on such termination to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances, if any, for the period of the notice or as the case may be for the period by which such notice fell short of one month, and no more. (See Bachi Ram v. Union of India.) The judgment of the High court which is based only on this ground cannot, therefore, be sustained. (See Bachi Ram v. Union of India.) The judgment of the High court which is based only on this ground cannot, therefore, be sustained. (6) IN view of the fact that some other points were raised by the respondent to challenge the termination of his service which have not been considered and decided by the High court, the matter must go back to the High court for a fresh decision of the writ petition with reference only to the other points raised by the respondent, treating the above ground as concluded. (7) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted to the High court for a fresh decision on the remaining points as indicated above. No costs. (8) THE parties shall appear before the Registrar of the Allahabad High court on 20/9/1993 for taking further directions in this behalf.