JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. T. Son, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. I. Riram, learned counsel Government Advocate for all the State respondents. 2. The petitioner was appointed temporarily as Driver in the Directorate of Information and Public Relations, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun in the pay scale of Rs.260-6-326-8-350/-PM plus other allowances as admissible under the rules in respective to other similar posts under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh from time to time, with effect from the date the petitioner had joint his service. The order of appointment is extracted as below:- “The following person are hereby appointed temporarily as ‘Driver’ under the Directorate of Information and Public Relations, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh in the scale of pay of 260-6-326-8-350/-PM plus other allowances as admissible under rules to similar posts under the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh from time to time, with effect from the date of the petitioner had joint his service. The order of appointment is extracted as below:- Sl.No. Name Place of attached to posting to whom Remark 1. Shri K. Sundhakaran Itanagar DIPR Against New Car of DIPR’s HQ Office 2. Shri Tilak Gurung Itanagar DIPR Against the post of vacated on expiry of B. Gambo 3. Shri Joram Alla Daporijo DIPRO, Daporijo 4. Shri K. K. Hitnga Pasighat DIPRO, Pasighat 5. Shri K. Sankaran Nair Pasighat DIPRO, Seppa 3. By the impugned order of the termination dated 13.02.1998, in exercise of its power under Rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) of the Rules 1965 (in short CCS-TS Rules), the Directorate of Information and Public Relations, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun, gave a notice to the petitioner Shri Joram Alla, that his service shall stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of 1(one) month from the date on which the notice was served. The relevant portion of the notice is extracted as below:- “Termination Notice In pursuance of sub-rule (1) of rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) rules 1965. I Shri Lummer Dai, Directorate of Information and Public Relations, Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun hereby give notice to Shri Joram Alia, Driver, C/O BDO office Yazuli Ziro-II, that his service shall stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date on which this notice is served on.” 4. I Shri Lummer Dai, Directorate of Information and Public Relations, Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun hereby give notice to Shri Joram Alia, Driver, C/O BDO office Yazuli Ziro-II, that his service shall stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date on which this notice is served on.” 4. A reading of the extracted portion of the “Termination Notice” makes it discernible that, this termination notice was issued by the Directorate of Information and Public Relations, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun, in exercise of its power under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules 1965. We have examined the order of appointment of the petitioner, as well as the notice of termination of his service. The order of appointment provides that the petitioner was temporarily appointed as Driver in a scale of pay of 260-6-326-8-350/-PM plus other allowances as admissible under rules in respect of similar posts under the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh from time to time with effect from the date of his joining and against an existing vacant sanctioned post. 5. The Rule 2(d) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules of 1965, inter alia, defines temporary service to mean that the employee concerned must be a temporary Government Servant in a temporary post or officiating service in a permanent post. The Rule 2(d) is extracted as below:- “Temporary Service means the service of a temporary Government servant in a temporary post or officiating service in a permanent post under the Government of India.” 6. A reading of Rule 2(d) makes it discernible that, in order to satisfy the requirement of being in a temporary service the employee concerned must be a temporary Government Servant in a temporary posts or officiating service in a permanent post. As per the order of appointment dated 28.08.1982, even if it is understood by taking note of the expression “appointed temporarily as Driver”, the petitioner must be a temporary Government Servant. But the order of appointment does not make it discernible that the petitioner was in a temporary post or officiating service in a permanent post under the Government of India. But the order of appointment does not make it discernible that the petitioner was in a temporary post or officiating service in a permanent post under the Government of India. In the absence of the conditions precedent of being appointed to a temporary post or officiating service in permanent post, although the order of appointment may refer the petitioner to have been temporarily appointed, but his service under the provisions of Rule 2(d) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules 1965, cannot be understood to be a temporary service. 7. A reading of the title of the CCS-TS Rules as well as the purpose for which the Rules have been framed, it appears that the Rules would be applicable to the temporary Government servants, who are in temporary service. To be in temporary service the conditions precedent required to be satisfied is that the person concerned must be in a temporary post or officiating in a permanent post. In the present case going by the order dated 28.08.1982 by which the petitioner was appointed, the conditions precedent are not satisfied, as the petitioner was neither appointed against a temporary post not he was appointed as officiating in a permanent post. As the impugned termination notice has been made under Rule 5(1) of the CCS-TS Rules and as the Rules itself would be not applicable in the case of the petitioner, therefore the impugned order of termination could not have issued under Rule 5(1) of the CCS-TS Rules. 8. We have taken note of the Commission letter dated 15.06.2022, which gives an indication that even the records are not clear as to whether the notice of termination was served upon the petitioner and also that the notice was not published in the Official Gazette or in any Local Newspaper. From such point of view also the termination of service notice dated 13.02.1998, requires interference. Even if otherwise the termination notice would have been acceptable in law but as because it was not served upon the petitioner, it would not have any effect under the law and nor it would be binding on him. The law in this respect has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of W.B. Vs. Even if otherwise the termination notice would have been acceptable in law but as because it was not served upon the petitioner, it would not have any effect under the law and nor it would be binding on him. The law in this respect has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of W.B. Vs. M.R. Mondalreportedin (2001) 8 SCC 443 , wherein in paragraph 16, it has been provided that “an order passed but retained in file without being communicated to the plaintiff can have no force or authority whatsoever and the same has no valid existence in the eye of the law or claim to have come into operation and effect. No reliance can be placed on the same to even assert a claim based on its contents”. 9. It is stated that the petitioner had retired from the service on 31.03.2019, and accordingly, upon interference of the order of termination it will have to be construed that the petitioner would have been in service up to the date of his retirement on 31.03.2019. Accordingly, as a consequence of the interference of the notice of termination upon the petitioner, the respondents are directed to provide the petitioner with necessary pensionery benefits as admissible under the rules. 10. We are of the view that the Directorate of Information and Public Relations, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun, had invoked a wrong power or authority to terminate the service of the petitioner, which under the Rules would not have been applicable. If there are reasons to terminate the petitioner, perhaps it was for the Directorate of Information and Public Relations, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun, to invoke such rules, which would have been applicable for termination of an employee, but it was not done in the present case. Accordingly, the termination notice dated 13.02.1998, is set aside. But having taken note of the aspect that the writ petition was filed in the year 2020, whereas, it is a termination notice of the year 1998, although we are inclined to hold the writ petition to be maintainable for the reason that medical documents are placed on record showing that the petitioner was not in an appropriate condition to have approached this Court earlier. But at the same time we are not inclined to provide for any back wages to the petitioner from the year 1998. 11. But at the same time we are not inclined to provide for any back wages to the petitioner from the year 1998. 11. The writ petition is disposed of as indicated above.