TMI Blog1954 (5) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the administration of the State was made over to the Saurashtra Government on the 16th March 1948. The Ruler of the Wadhwan State appointed in 1946 a Committee to frame rules for the conditions of service and for pensions and other matters regarding the services. The Committee made its report on the 22nd November 1947 and on the recommendations of the Committee the Ruler of the Wadhwan State promulgated on the 3rd February 1948 Dhara (Act) No. 29 of St. 2004 which came into force with effect from the 1st January 1948. Section 5 of this Dhara fixed the superannuation age for the State Civil servant at 60 and the Appellant thus became entitled to remain in service till he completed his age of 60 years. 3. The Rulers of the Kathiawar States ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnment and the Saurashtra State would fulfil the same. 6. Under Article 16(1) of the Covenant the United States of Kathiawar had guaranteed either the continuance in service of the permanent members of the public services of each of the Covenanting States on conditions which would not be less advantageous than those on which they serving before the date on which the administration of the State was made over to the Raj Pramukh or the payment of reasonable compensation. 7. By an order dated the 29th June 1948 the Appellant was retired by the Saurashtra State on the ground that he had passed the age of superannuation which was taken at 55 years, on payment of three months' leave salary and a monthly pension of ₹ 40-13-0. The Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim, as also the further contention that the suit was barred under Article 363 of the Constitution. The High Court, however, was of the opinion that the Ruler of the Wadhwan State had no. legislative competence after he had entered into the Covenant on the 24th January 1948 to enact the Dhara No. 29 of St. 2004 and that therefore the Appellant's claim for compensation on the footing that he was entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years was unsustainable. The High Court was also of he opinion that even on the footing of the retiring age being 60 years what had been granted by the Saurashtra Government to the Appellant was most liberal and far in excess of what he would have received from the Wadhwan State because of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enactment he did not do so and therefore so long as the Dhara remained in force the Appellant was entitled to the benefit of it and could have enforced his rights under it in the State Courts either against the State itself or at any rate against such of the officers of the State as wrongfully withheld his salary or wrongfully dismissed him. When the Wadhwan State merged with the Saurashtra State and again when it acceded to the Dominion of India all the existing laws continued until repealed. It follows that the Appellant's right under the were still good and could have been enforced in the Municipal Courts until either repealed or repudiated as an act of State. These rights were carried over after the Constitution when the Indian R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore us that under the terms of the guarantee incorporated in Article 16 of the Covenant it was open to the Saurashtra State to Compulsorily retire the Appellant on payment of reasonable compensation. He urged that that compensation could not be any more than what the Appellant would have been entitled to receive from the Ruler of the Wadhwan State if he had continued in his service at the time when he was compulsorily retired by the Saurashtra State. It was pointed out that the services of the Appellant with the Wadhwan State were during the pleasure of the Ruler of the State and that the Ruler of the State could have compulsorily retired him without being liable to pay him any compensation whatever and that therefore the position of the of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd also does not avail the Respondent. 16. The amount of pension, viz, ₹ 43-11-0 per month which was granted by the Saurashtra State to the Appellant was not the subject-matter of the suit. The amount of compensation clamed by the Appellant was over and above the said amount of pension and the Trial Court adjudicated upon such compensation. The Appellant's rights in regard to the pension were not at all affected by the amount of compensation awarded by the Trial Court to him. The Appellant will therefore continue to receive the amount of pension in addition to whatever compensation has been awarded to him, by the Trial Court. 17. The result, therefore, is that the appeal will be allowed, the decree passed by the High court s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
