Case: Rajvi Amar Singh Vs. The State Of Rajasthan

311 of the Constitution was violated. If this contention is sound, it will follow that the fresh appointment as Civil Judge after the High Courts order will also be bad for the same reasons.15. Now it is well established that when one State is absorbed in another whether by accession, conquest, merger or integration, all contracts of service between the prior Government and its servants automatically terminate and thereafter those who elect to serve in the new State, and are taken on by it, serve on such terms and conditions as the new State may choose to impose. This is nothing more, (though on a more exalted scale), than an application of the principle that underlies the law of Master and Servant when there is a change of masters. So far as this Court is concerned, the law is settled by the decision in State of Madras v. K. M. Rajagoplan, 1955-2 SCR 541 at p. 562:( (S) AIR 1955 SC 817 at p 830)(A), which follows the decisions of the Privy council and the House of Lords in Reilly v. The King, 1934 A. C. 176 (B), and Nokes v. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd. 1940 A. C. 1014 (C). The distinction between rights to properly and contractual rights when there is a change of sovereignty was pointed out in Virendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1955-1 SCR 415 at p. 427: (AIR 1954 Sc 447 at p. 451)(D).16. The appellant founds on Art. XVI (1) of the Covenant. It was contended that he cannot rely on this because he was not a party to it but we need not decide this because, even if this be assumed to be the law of the new State settling the conditions of service of those who continue in service, all that it says is that the conditions of their service will not be less advantageous than those on which they were serving on 1-11-1948. We have shown above that this condition is fulfilled.17. But that apart, Article XVI (1) indicates that the old contracts terminate just as they did in 1955-2 SCR at p. 562: ((S) AIR 1955 SC 817 ) (A). In the first place, there were three options:(1) continuance in service(2) payment of reasonable compensation, and(3) retirement on proportionate Pension.That shows that the old contracts terminated and that those who continued in service did so on the basis of fresh contracts, the conditions of which had yet to be determined. The only guarantee (assuming that the appellant can avail himself of it) was that the new conditions were not to be less advantageous than those on which the appellant was serving on 1-11-1948. There was no guarantee that they would be the same or better.18. This was emphasised in the Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary dated 4-6-1949. It first referred to the broad outlines of the programme of integration that had already been published and then outlined the procedure and principles to be observed in carrying it out. Paragraph 6 is as follows:"After final orders have been passed by the Government on the Departmental reorganisation schemes and cadres and strength for different kinds of establishments in each department are fixed, the heads of departments will prepare gradation lists according to prescribed rules and put up proposals fixation of each individual Government servant in the posts on permanent, officiating or deputation basis.They will also determined the revised rates of pay admissible to each Gazetted and non-Gazetted officer under the new scales etc."And then paragraph 15-"It is not the intention of Government to throw any Government servant out of employ as far as practicable. If necessary, services of efficient and deserving staff will be retained temporarily on supernumerary basis in the prospect of finding work for them in connection with new development schemes."19. The order of 9-12-1949, on which the appellant relies, transferring him as District and Sessions Judge to the District Court at Ganganagar, must be read subject to the above and, if Article XVI (1) of the Covenant applies, then subject to that as well. An order of transfer cannot be equated to an order of appointment; and in any case, the new cadres had not been established and the new Courts under the proposed scheme of re-organisation had not been constituted, so anything done at that stage could only have been part and parcel of the temporary transitional arrangements pending the final settlement by the new State of the schemes and conditions of service.20. The next set of orders published in the Gazette of 25-2-1950, brings this out clearly,. We have already set out its terms.21. The order of 25-3-1950 and 31-7-1950, sanctioning the increment do not help the appellant, He is described thereas"Shri Rajvi Amar Singh, District and Sessions Judge in Bikaner Division."This is merely descriptive as the endorsement on the letter indicates. It runs-"Copy forwarded to-(1) Shri Amar Singh, Civil and Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu."No determination to post the appellant permanently in a particular cadre and post can be spelled out of these accidental descriptions in orders dealing with a different matter. Postings to a cadre and engagements of service are not made in this incidental way.22. The substantive appointment gazetted on 23-4-1951, after the new cadres and Courts had been fixed, was struck down by the High Court, and the Government of Rajasthan was directed to treat that as an ad hoc appointment. According to the respondent in its statement of the case, the matter was regularised after the High Courts decision and he appellant was again appointed a Civil Judge. If that is so, then this must be regarded as his first substantive appointment in the new State.But whether this is first substantive appointment after the integration, or the one of 23-4-1951, no question of reduction in rank can arise and so Art, 311 is not attracted. All his previous posting in the new State were purely transitional and temporary; and so far as Art. XVI(1) of the Covenant is concerned, its guarantee has been fulfilled.23.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]it is well established that when one State is absorbed in another whether by accession, conquest, merger or integration, all contracts of service between the prior Government and its servants automatically terminate and thereafter those who elect to serve in the new State, and are taken on by it, serve on such terms and conditions as the new State may choose to impose. This is nothing more, (though on a more exalted scale), than an application of the principle that underlies the law of Master and Servant when there is a change ofthe first place, there were three options:(1) continuance in service(2) payment of reasonable compensation, and(3) retirement on proportionate Pension.That shows that the old contracts terminated and that those who continued in service did so on the basis of fresh contracts, the conditions of which had yet to be determined. The only guarantee (assuming that the appellant can avail himself of it) was that the new conditions were not to be less advantageous than those on which the appellant was serving on 1-11-1948. There was no guarantee that they would be the same ororder of transfer cannot be equated to an order of appointment; and in any case, the new cadres had not been established and the new Courts under the proposed scheme of re-organisation had not been constituted, so anything done at that stage could only have been part and parcel of the temporary transitional arrangements pending the final settlement by the new State of the schemes and conditions ofsubstantive appointment gazetted on 23-4-1951, after the new cadres and Courts had been fixed, was struck down by the High Court, and the Government of Rajasthan was directed to treat that as an ad hoc appointment. According to the respondent in its statement of the case, the matter was regularised after the High Courts decision and he appellant was again appointed a Civil Judge. If that is so, then this must be regarded as his first substantive appointment in the new State.But whether this is first substantive appointment after the integration, or the one of 23-4-1951, no question of reduction in rank can arise and so Art, 311 is not attracted. All his previous posting in the new State were purely transitional and temporary; and so far as Art. XVI(1) of the Covenant is concerned, its guarantee has been fulfilled.