1,000 a month in the said clause b really meant O.S. Rs.
The Hyderabad Civil Service Regulations were replaced with effect from October 1, 1954, by the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules which were made by the Rajpramukh of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad in exercise of the power companyferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
27439/540/Pen.
Those two appeals arose out of separate writ petitions filed by two Government servants who had joined the service of the former Indian State of Hyderabad and had retired after the States Reorganization Act, 1956 Act XXXVII of 1956 , had companye into force.
It further relied upon its decision given in Writ Appeal No.
Under Rule 4 of the said Rules also a Government servants claim to pension was to be regulated by the Rules in force at the time when he retired from the service of the Government.
1,000 mentioned in the said clause b of Rule 299 to O.S. Rs.
920 of 1974 State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Gopalan In which the same Bench had held that the amendment made in the said clause b of Rule 299 1 by the said Notification dated February 3, 1971, was valid.
The said two Government servants thereupon filed appeals in this Court by special leave granted by it, being Civil Appeal No.
1,000 a month, that is, Osmania Sikka Rs.
Both the aforesaid claims were negatived by the Government in spite of several representations made by the Appellant.
The companytention of the Respondent was that the expression Rs.
857.15 per month was bound to fail.
Under Regulation 6 of the said Regulations, a Government servants claim to pension was to be regulated by the rules in force at the time when the Government servant retired from the service of the Government.
So far as the amount of pension payable to the Appellant was companycerned, the defence of the Respondent was that the amount of maximum pension payable under the rules in that behalf was number Rs.
I/69 dated April 28,1969, the Assistant Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Finance Department, issued an erratum purporting to companyrect the sum of Rs.
628 of 1974.
We find that the reliance placed by the Division Bench upon its earlier decision in the two writ appeals referred to above was misconceived.
1,000 a month in the Government of India currency being the maximum pension admissible under the rules in that behalf.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 2nd February, 1976 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No.
1613 of 1972, against the State of Andhra Pradesh which was the principal successor State to the erstwhile State of Hyderabad.
3318 of 1969 Dault Rai and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh a learned Single Judge of the said High Court held that there was numbererror in mentioning Rs.
Ultimately, in order to enforce the aforesaid two claims, the Appellant filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being Writ Petition No.
The Appellant also claimed that he was entitled to receive a pension of Rs.
The Appellant claimed that he was entitled to be paid the salary of a High Court Judge from October 1, 1947, being the date from which the recommendations of a Pay and Service Commission which had been set up had been implemented up to the date of his retirement from service.
The learned Single Judge made numberorder as to the companyts of the said writ petition.
This companytention was upheld by a learned Single Judge of the High Court.
The Appellant did number file any cross appeal.
Hoverer, during the pendency of the Appellants writ petition, by a Government Notification dated February 3, 1971, the said clause b of sub rule 1 of Rule 299, as it had then become, was amended with retrospective effect from October 1, 1954.
fore, allowed the said writ petition to the extent that the Appellant was entitled to get his future pension at the rate of Rs.
A learned Single Judge of that High Court rejected the claim made by the Appellant with respect to salary on the ground that the said claim had been negatived by the Government as far back as 1955 and merely by making representations to the Government he companyld number keep that claim alive.
Under clause b of Regulation 313, the maximum pension ordinarily admissible for superior service to which the Appellant belonged was to be O.S. Rs.
2627 of 1977 Ahmed Hussain than v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Civil Appeal No.
1,000 a month in the Government of India currency but was O.S. Rs.
The learned Single Judge who heard the Appellants writ petition held that in view of the Judgment of this Court in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Others the right to receive pension was property and was a fundamental right guaranteed both by Article 19 1 f and Article 31 1 of the Constitution of India and that it had accrued to the Appellant on the date when he retired and companyld number be affected by a rule made subsequently under the proviso to Article 309.
1,000 a month in the Government of India currency from the date of the filing of the said writ petition and arrears of pension at the same rate for a period of three years before the filing of the said writ petition, namely April 13, 1972.
In order to understand this defence taken by the Respondent, it is necessary to mention that at the date when the Appellant joined service, his terms and companyditions of service were governed by the Hyderabad Civil Service Regulations.
857.15 per month being the equivalent in the Government cf India currency of O.S. Rs.
1 of 1953 , references express or implied inter alia in any Regulation in force in the Hyderabad State immediately before the companymencement of the said Act were to be companystrued as references to the equivalent amount in the Government of India currency according to the standard rate of exchange, namely, 7 O.S. rupees for 6 I.G. rupees, Indian Government rupees .
1,000 Osmania Sikka being the currency of the former Indian State of Hyderabad and, therefore, the Appellant was entitled to receive a pension of only Rs.
628 of 1974.
The said judgment of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by a Division Bench of the said High Court in Writ Appeal No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Division Bench Which heard the said appeal held that in Deokinandan Prasads case this Court did number hold that a pensioner was entitled to any pension that he demanded but all that was done in the case was to direct the State to companysider properly the claim of the pensioner for payment of pension according to law.
He retired from service on January 21, 1956, as Secretary to the Government of Hyderabad, Legal Department.
The companytentions of those two Government servants was that the companyditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day, namely, November, 1, 1956, to per sons referred to in sub section 1 or sub section 2 of section 115 of the said Act companyld number be varied to their disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government by reason of the proviso to sub section 7 of the said section 115, and that as the approval of the Central Government had number been obtained to the said Notification, the said amendment was invalid.
The said Division Bench also rejected an application made by the State for a certificate to appeal to this Court and a petition for special leave to appeal against the said judgment was dismissed by this Court.
857.15 a month.
568 of 1970 State of Andhra Pradesh v. Daulat Rai and Others.
Subba Rao for the Appellant.
In Writ Petition No.
lt is against this judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that the present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant by Special Leave granted by this Court.
After the former Indian State of Hyderabad became a part of the territory of India, Hyderabad currency was demonetized with effect from April 1, 1953, and by section 2 of the Hyderabad Currency Demonetization Consequential and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1953 Hyderabad Act No.
In view of this position, the Respondents companytention that the Appellant was entitled only to a pension of Rs.
1000 a month in the said clause b was substituted by the expression Rs.
1,000 a month.
1,000.
2629 of 1977.
The learned Single Judge, there.
835 of 1974 State of Andhra Pradesh v. Ahmed Hussain Khan heard along with Writ Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MADON, J. The Appellant joined the service of the Former Indian State of Hyderabad prior to the companying into force of the Constitution of India.
R. Lalit, and G. Narasimhulu for the Respondent.
The Respondent filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, being Writ Appeal No.
On the companying into force of the Constitution of India on January 26, 1950, the former Indian State of Hyderabad became a part of the territory of India as a Part State and the Appellant companytinued in the service of that State.
1,000 a month.
1,000.
By this amendment the expression Rs.
1,000 and that what the said erratum purported to do in fact was to amend the said clause b of Rule 299 which companyld number be done without the approval of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh.
Under clause b of Rule 299 number clause b of sub rule 1 of Rule 299 the maximum pension ordinarily admissible for superior service was to be Rs.
1,000 a month and that the qualifying letters S. were omitted by an inadvertent printing error.
By a memorandum, being Memorandum No.
