RAM DAYAL CHUNILAL YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, purporting to be tinder Article 226 of the Constitution, arises under the following circumstances : The petitioner was appointed in July, 1946, as an engineer in the erstwhile Bilaspur State on a salary of Rs. 350/- p. m. and was confirmed in that capacity on 15-3-1947, when his pay was increased to Rs. 400/- p.m. On 15-8-1948, Bilaspur State was merged in the Indian Dominion. The petitioner's designation was altered to "Divisional Engineer" and he was permitted to draw the salary he was then receiving. From March, 1949, to April, 1950, petitioner worked as Divisional Engineer of Bilaspur State. On 25-5-1950, the petitioner received orders posting him as Sub-Divisional Officer, Paonta. The petitioner protested to the Chief Commissioner, Bilaspur, and also sent a representation to the States Ministry at Delhi, against being appointed to a lower post. On 21-8 1950, petitioner was informed that his services were to be terminated. He was also placed under suspension. By order dated 17-10-1950, the Chief Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh terminated the services of the petitioner.

(2.) On 31-7-1953, a writ petition, purporting to be under Article 226, read with Article 311 of the Constitution, was filed in this Court by the petitioner, wherein he prayed that a writ be issued to the Union of India and the then State of Himachal Pradesh, declaring that the termination of his services was illegal, ultra vires and inoperative and further directing them to retain the petitioner- in service on existing terms. That petition (No. Civil Writ Petition 11 of 1953) was rejected by this Court on 20-9-1954 on the ground that since there was a dispute between the parties as to facts and the petitioner should seek his remedy, if so advised, by way of suit.

(3.) Accordingly, a suit was filed by the petitioner in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge at Nahan. It was, however, dismissed by that Court, The petitioner went up in. appeal and the learned District Judge of Sirmur, vide his judgment dated 28-10-1957 in Civil Appeal No. 17-S/13 of 1957, allowed the appeal in the following terms :