1 of 1948 companytinuing in force all laws, ordinances, Acts, rules, regulations etc.
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 Rs.
20, 000 being the amount to which he was entitled as companypensation by reason of his premature companypulsory retirement.
having the force of law in the Covenanting State until repealed or amended under the provisions of the ordinance.
Even though the Ruler may have had the power to repeal this enactment he did number do so and therefore so long as the Dhara remained in force the Appellant was entitled to the benefit of it and companyld 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.
Under Art.
He however resisted the claim of the Appellant on the grounds 1 that the guarantee companytained in Article 16 of the Covenant which was sought to be enforced by the Appellant companyld number be enforced in the Municipal Courts and the suit of the Appellant was therefore incompetent and 2 that the amount of companypensation awarded by the Trial Court to the Appellant was far in excess of what he was entitled to.
29 of St. 2004 and that therefore the Appellants claim for companypensation on the footing that he was entitled to companytinue in service till the age of 60 years was unsustainable.
The Appellant accepted the amount of the leave salary, that is Rs.
The Ruler of the Wadhwan State in the exercise of his legislative capacity passed the Dhara No.
40 13 0.
The Ruler of the Wadhwan State appointed in 1946 a Committee to frame rules for the companyditions of service and for pensions and other matters regarding the services.
6 1 of the Covenant the Ruler of each Covenanting State agreed as soon as may be practicable and in any even number later that the 15th April 1948 to make over the administration of his State to the Raj Pramukh and thereupon all the rights, authority and jurisdiction belonging to the Ruler pertaining or incidental to the Government of the Covenanting State were to vest in the United States of Kathiawar and all similar duties and obligations of the Ruler were to devolve on the United States of Kathiawar and were to be discharged by it.
He also relied upon Article 363 of the Constitution which bars interference by Courts in any disputes arising out of certain treaties and companyenants.
The claim of the Appellant was companytested mainly on the ground that after the Ruler of the Wadhwan State had entered into the Covenant on the 24th January 1948 it was number companypetent to him to enact any law, rule or regulation which would bind the Saurashtra State.
29 of 2004.
The ruler of the Wadhwan State made over the administration of the State to the Saurashtra Government on the 16th March 1948 and a proclamation was issued on the said date by the Saurashtra Government declaring that whatever rights, jurisdiction and authority were with the Thakore saheb Ruler with respect to the said State were then vested in the Saurashtra Government and the duties and obligations with regard to the Rulers own State passed to the Saurashtra Government and the Saurashtra State would fulfil the same.
On the 2nd August 1936 the appellant was appointed officiating Sarnyayadhis in the Wadhwan State on a monthly salary of Rs.
716 4 0 and pension under protest and without prejudice to his claim for companypensation on the ground that under the Wadhwan State Service Rules he was entitled to companytinue in service till the companypletion of 60 years of age.
29 of St. 2004 which came into force with effect from the 1st January 1948.
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.
He was companyfirmed on the 20th September 1936 and companytinued to serve the Wadhwan State till the administration of the State was made over to the Saurashtra Government on the 16th March 1948.
The Rulers of the Kathiawar States including the Wadhwan State entered into a companyenant for the formation of the United States of Kathiawar on the 24th January 1948.
AIR 1954 SC 680 The Judgment was delivered by BHAGWATI BHAGWATI, J. This appeal on a certificate under Article 133 1 a of the Constitution arises out of the appellants suit for companypensation against the Saurashtra State for his premature retirement from service.
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 Ruler of the Wadhwan State had at all times a right to retire him during his pleasure and the Appellant companyld number have insisted on remaining in service till the age of 60.
The High Court, however, was of the opinion that the Ruler of the Wadhwan State had number legislative companypetence after he had entered into the Covenant on the 24th January 1948 to enact the Dhara No.
29 of St. 2004 which gave the Appellant certain statutory rights.
On the 21s April 1949 the Appellant filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, S. D. Surendranagar against the Saurashtra State claiming a sum of Rs.
Under Article 16 1 of the Covenant the United States of Kathiawar had guaranteed either the companytinuance in service of the permanent members of the public services of each of the Covenanting States on companyditions which would number 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 companypensation.
The Raj Pramukh took his oath of office on the 15th February 1948 and on the 1st March 1948 promulgated an ordinance being Ordinance No.
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 companypleted his age of 60 years.
As regards the first ground the learned Solicitor General companytended that the entering into of the Covenant by the Rules of the Kathiawar State was an act of State and that the Municipal Courts were number companypetent to entertain any disputes arising out of the Covenant.
The High Court negatived the companytention of the Saurashtra State that the action of the State amounted to an act of State and that the Municipal Courts had number jurisdiction to entertain the Appellants claim, as also the further companytention that the suit was barred under Article 363 of the Constitution.
It was also companytended that number suit lay against the Saurashtra State in the Municipal Courts inasmuch as the action of the Saurashtra Government amounted to an act of State.
