STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER versus COL. LAL RAMPAL SINGH

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 53 · Decided: 07-10-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

53 
A 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER 
v. 
COL. LAL RAMPAL SINGH 
October 7, 1965 
B 
(A. K. SARKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] 
Indian State-Retirernent pension fixed by Ruler in relaxation of Re1va 
State Pension and Gratuity Rules-Ruler's act whether 'laiv' or 'grant'-
Succeeding Government whether bound .to continue paymerzt. 
The respondent held various offices under the Government of the erst-
while Rewa State. 
By an Order made on April 3, 
1948" the Ruler 
allowed him to retire on a full pension of Rs. 350/ - per month as a 
special case, and the breaks in his service were also condoned. The State 
of Rewa was later merged with the State of Vindhya Pradesh and the 
appropriate authority passed orders reducing the respondent's pension. 
Vindhya Pradesh later be<:ame a part of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The 
respondent moved a petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for a 
writ of certiorari in which he prayed that the orders reducing his pension 
be quashed. The High Court decided in his favour whereupon the Sta<c 
of Madhya Pradesh appealed ,to (bis Court. 
The questions that fell for determination in the appeal were whether 
the Order of the Ruler· of Rewa amounted to 'law', 
and whether, 
if 
not 'law', it was a grant Which the succeeding Govern1nent must be 
deemed to- have accepted since it made payments in terms of it for severa1 
years. 
HELD : (i) From the terms of the Order in question it was clear 
that the Ruler purported to act under the Rewa State Rules. This would 
appear from the reference to 'full pension', condonation of the 'breaks 
in service' arid 'special case', in the said order. 
This would also appear 
from the fact that the Order granted the respondent certain advance incre-
ments which could only have been done to justify the fu11 pension of 
Rs. 350/- per month under the rules. 
Obviously under ohe rules ,the 
respondent would have hzen entitled to a smaller pension in view of the 
breaks and if the increments had not been granted. The Ruler was not, 
therefore, acting in exercise of his1 sovereign power and in disregard of 
the rules; on the contrary he was purporting to act in terms of the rules. 
That being so it had to be held that the Order in question was not a 
law but an executive order passed in terms of the rules. 
It was open 
to the succeeding Government to set asid·e ,that order by another executive 
order. (54 G-H; 55 BJ 
(ii) Wbat the Ruler did by his Order of April 3, 1948 does not 
appear to, have been to make a grant but to have passed an Order pur-
portmg to act under the Rules. If that Ord·zr was not justified by the 
rules. it was liable to be set aside by another order duly made under them. 
~ens1on 1s furthermore i:orma11y ~lways a matter of grace. 
It is implicit 
1n the ~rant of a pension that it may be s.ubscquen1ly reviewed. 
The 
succeeding s~ate was hence competent to review the order even if it had 
paid the pension for sometime in terms of it. (55 D-F] 
' 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 736 of 
1963. 
54 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1966] 2 S.C.R. 
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order, dated 
A. 
November 12, 1960, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. 
Petition No. 265 of 1958. 
B. Sen, M. N. Shroff and I. N. Shroff, for the appellants. 
A. P. Singh Chohan and A. D. Mathur, for respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sarkar, J. 
This is the third case in the series and it arises out 
of a petition for a writ of certiorari moved in the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh to quash certain orders reducing the pension 
granted to the respondent Col. Lal Rampal Singh by an order of C 
the Ruler of Rewa before that State had merged in the United 
State of Vindhya Pradesh. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh 
tciok the same view as in the Nagod case (Civil Appeal No. 738 
of 1963) in which judgment has been delivered eai·Jier in the 
day. 
The subsequent fortunes of the United State have been 
described in that judgment. Here also the question is whether the D 
order of the Ruler of Rewa was law. 
The respondent held. various offices in the Government of 
Rewa. By an order made on April 3, 1948 and published in an 
extraordinary issue of the Rewa Raj Gazette the Ruler stated that 
"Col. Lal Rampa! Singh entered State service on 21st November, E 
1922 and he is now anxious to retire. I find that he has put in a 
service of more than 25 years up

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.