STATE OF MADRAS AND ANOTHER versus K.M.RAJAGOPALAN

Citation: [1955] 2 S.C.R. 541 · Decided: 27-09-1955 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIVIAN BOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

2S,C.lt 
SUPREME COUllT REPOR'I'S 
541 
and that it invades no fundamental rights of the 
landlord. 
For the reasons 
given above, we must hold that the 
scheme embodied in sections 81 to 86 of the Act docs 
not transgress any of the Constitutional limit:rtions, 
and is valid. 
In the result, the petitions are dismissed but in the 
circumstances, without costs. 
STATE OF MADRAS AND ANOTHER 
v. 
K. M. RAJAGOPALAN 
[VIVIAN BosE, BHAGWATI, JAGANNADHADAS, 
B. P. SINHA and }AFAR IMAM JJ·] 
Indian Independence Act, 1947 (10 and 11 Geo. VI, C. 30)-
s. 10(2) (a)-The India (Provisional Constitution) Order, 1947-
Article 7(1)-Inde.pendence, Conferral of-Automatic and legal termi-
nation of service-Persons holding civil posts in India-Previous to 
Independence-Whether deemed to have been appointed and continue 
in service after Independence-Government of India Act, 1935, ss. 240 
(2) and 247. 
The respondent was recruited to the Indian Civil Service by 
open competition in 1936 and joined duty in the Province of Madras 
in October 1937. Since then he was serving under the Government 
of Madras in various capacities, his last office being Sub-Collector of 
Dindigal. He went on leave in June 1947. While on leave he received 
a letter from the 
Government of India asking him whether he was 
willing to continue in the service of the Government after the then 
contemplated transfer ot power from the British Government to the 
Dominion of India on the 15th August, 1947. 
He sent a reply ex-
pressing his willingness to continue in service. 
On 9th August, 1947 
he received a letter from the Government of Madras dated 7th August, 
194 7 signed by the Chief Secretary thereof stating that it w.as de-
cided not to retaip his services from and after the 15th August, 1947, 
and that his services would be terminated with effect from the after-
noon of the 14th August, 1947. 
The respondent filed a suit against the State of Madras and the 
Union of India for a declaration that the order issued by the Chief 
Secretary to the Government of· Madras on the 7th August, 1947 
purporting to terminate his services was null, void and inoperative 
and that he should be deemed to continue in service. The High Court 
granted the declaration prayed for 
accepting the respondent's con-
tention that the order terminating his service was in violation of the 
1!155 
Shri Klihan Singli 
/llUl lllltds 
v. 
TM Stille ef 
ilJJJflltltan °"' 
others 
V enkalarama 
..tyyar J. 
1955 
S1pumber27 
!955 
T/,. Stale ' ef 
Madras and 
another 
v. 
IL. M. Rajagopalan 
542 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
statutory guarantee relating to his service under s. 240 of the Gov-
ernment of India Act, 1935 which remained in force till the midnight 
of the 14th August, 1947. 
Held, I. The conferral of .Independence on India 
brought 
about an automatic and legal termination of service on the date of 
Independence. 
Reilly v. The King ([1934 J A.C. 176) and Nokes v. Doncaster 
Amalgamated Collieries Ltd., ([1940] A.C. 1014), followed. 
2. But all persons previously holding civil posts in India arc 
deemed to have been appointed and hence to continue in service, ex-
cept those governed by "general or special orders or arrangements" 
affecting their respective cases: vide Article 7( I) of the India (Pro-
visional Constitution) Order, 1947 read with section !0(2)(a) of the 
Indian Independence Act and sections 240(2) and 247 of the Govern-
ment of India Act as adapted. 
3. The guarantee about prior conditions of service and the pre-
vious statutory safeguards relating to disciplinary action continue 
to apply to those who are thus deemed to continue in service but 
not to others. 
4. Those previously holding civil posts in India had the right> 
and were in fact given the option, of declining to "continue in ser-
vice" under the new regin1e and in the event of their exercising that 
option they ceased to serve on and from the date of the passing of 
the Constitution. 
5. Equally the new GoYernment had 
the 
right to refuse 
to 
continue them in service and intimation of this fact given to persons 
ahead of time came into operation and had legal effect from the mo-
ment the new Government assumed office on 15-8-1947. 
6. As the petitioner was informed that his services would not 
be required after 14-8-1947 his services terminated on that date be-
cause this was a special order within the meani_qg of Article 7(1) of 
the India 
(Provisional Constitution) Order, 1947. 
Accordingly 
there w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.