Retrospective extension of terminated service is invalid when the employer's earlier order already fixed the end date.

Where an employer's own order fixed a terminal date for service, a later retrospective extension made after that date could not revive a relationship that had already ended by operation of the earlier order. The service was kept alive only up to the period expressly stated in the order of 6 January 1961, and no further order was issued before the service expired. An order made later, purporting to extend service from 1 April 1961, was therefore outside jurisdiction and invalid. The writ petition was properly allowed and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State could extend the respondent's service after the date on which his service had already come to an end, and whether the subsequent order dated 9 May 1961 was within jurisdiction.

Analysis: The respondent's service was first kept alive by the order of 22 December 1960, and the later order of 6 January 1961 itself limited that retention to three months from 1 January 1961 or until completion of the departmental proceedings, whichever was earlier. The departmental proceedings were not concluded within that period. The State did not issue any further order before 31 March 1961. An order made more than a month later, purporting to extend service from 1 April 1961, could not revive or continue a service relationship that had already ended by operation of the State's own earlier order. Once the service had ceased, a fresh unilateral extension could not be created retrospectively.

Conclusion: The later order extending service was without jurisdiction and invalid; the writ petition was rightly allowed, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the employer's own order fixes the date on which service will end, any subsequent order made after that date purporting to extend service retrospectively is a nullity and cannot revive a terminated service.

---