STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MADANSWARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals by the defendant State against two separate judgments of the District Judge Bikaner of the same date that is tile 31st May, 1954, by which he decreed the suits of the two plaintiffs for damages for breach of certain alleged contracts of service. As these appeals raise precisely the same questions of law, this judgment will govern both of them.

(2.) The salient facts of the two cases may be shortly stated as follows:

(3.) The suit in appeal No. 77 of 1954 was filed by Laxminarain, a legal practitioner of the erstwhile Covenanting State of Bikaner and now an Advocate of this Court. His case was that ho had been engaged by the former State of Bikaner as an Assistant Government Advocate in 1931 and since then he had been in continuous employment as such or as Acting Government Advocate or as Government Advocate until October, 1947 in that State. The plaintiff had the option throughout this period to continue his civil practice. From November, 1, 1947, an agreement was entered into between him and the authorities of the Bikaner State according to which he accepted to work as Government Advocate on a starting salary of Rs. 400/-in the grade of Rs. 400-25-600 and the appointment to last for a period of 5 years likely to be renewed subject to the plaintiffs consent. (See Ex. A1). The plaintiff's main functions were to "be in charge of the sessions work in the High Court and of appeals arising from such cases." The plaintiff was permitted civil practice with certain restrictions which are not material for our present purposes. This appointment continued until the Bikaner State was merged into the United State of Rajasthan as constituted in April, 1949, and was further allowed to continue after the Part B State of Rajasthan was formed under the Constitution until the 11th February, 1950. By a letter of the Law Sercetary and Legal Remembrancer of the State of Rajasthan dated 7th February, 1950, the services of the plaintiff were terminated with effect from the afternoon of the 11th February, 1950, and he was asked to hand over charge to the Commissioner Bikaner. The plaintiff complied with this order. The case of the plaintiff is that this order of termination of his services was a clear breach of the contract which had guaranteed his appointment as Government Advocate for a period of five years from 1-11-1957 and was against the Covenant entered into by the then Ruler of Bikaner with the Rulers or other Covenanting States and was, therefore, unconstitutional, and void. It was also contended that the defendant State had continued his appointment until after the Constitution had come into force on the 26th January, 1950, and thereby recognised it and therefore it was not open to it to terminate his services in the manner adopted. The plaintiff claimed to be in the permanent service of the former Bikaner State, but as this claim was not pressed by him in the court below and was definitely given up before us, we do not consider it necessary to refer to his claim based on this stand-point for the purposes of these appeals and we are concerned only with the alternative claim put forward by him. On this latter footing he claimed compensation equal to his salary for a period from 12-2-1950 to 31-10-1952, which he worked out at Rupees 21712/8/-. Against this amount, the plaintiff has made an allowance of Rs. 5712/8/-which he alleges to have earned during the relevant period on account of his criminal practice by way of mitigation of damages. In this way the plaintiff claimed a decree for Rs. 15,000/- together with pen-dente lite and future interest. Before fifing this suit the plaintiff had given the statutory notice under Section 80 C. P. C. claiming his dues from the State but without any success and, therefore, the present suit was brought on 9-4-1953.