THE STATE OF BIHAR versus ABDUL MAJID

Citation: [1954] 1 S.C.R. 786 · Decided: 11-02-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

195{ 
Th• Rqja/unundry 
EU.lri< SuHIJ 
Corpuration LJd. 
v. 
Th• State •f 
A.ndhr•. 
DasJ. 
[95{ 
F1brnary 11. 
786 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1954] 
Province for any purpose connected with a matter with 
respect to which the Federal Legislature had pow~i;. to' 
make laws, require the Province to acquire the land on 
behalf and at the expense of the Federation. If power 
inhered in the Federal Legislature to make a law for 
the acquisition of any property for any purpose con-
nected with a matter with respect to which it had 
power to make laws then section 127 would not have· 
been 
necessary 
at all. 
The absence 
of any entry 
empowering any Legislature to make laws with respect 
to cmnpulsory acquisition of a commercial or indus-
trial undertaking and the provisions of section 127 to· 
which reference has just been made make it abundantly 
clear that the contentions 
urged 
by 
the 
learned 
Advocate-General cannot possibly be 
sustained. 
In· 
our opinion, therefore, it must be held that the Madras 
Legislature had no legislative competency to enact the· 
impugned law. This is sufficient to dispose of this 
appeal and it is not necessary to express any opinion 
on the other points raised in the court below. 
The result, therefore, is that this appeal must be 
allowed with costs both in the High Court as well as in· 
tJ1is court. 
Appeal, allowed. 
Agent for the appellant : M. S. K. Aiyangar. 
Agent for the respondent : R. H. Dhebar. 
Agent for the intervener : R.H. Dhebar. 
THE STATE OF BIHAR 
v. 
ABDUL MAJID 
[MEHR CHAND 
MAHAJAN C. J., MUKlIEllJEA, 
S. R. DAs, VMAN BosE and GHULAM HASAN JJ.] 
Civil 
servant-Wrongful 
dismissal-Suit 
for 
recovery 
of 
arl'ears of salary-Whether competent-Rule of English law-Civil 
servant-Holding office at the pleasure of Crotvn-Whether applic~ 
able in India. 
Held, that the rule of English law that a civil servant cannot· 
maintain a suit against the State or 
against the 
Crown for 
the-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
787 
recovery of arrears 
of salary 
does not prevail in India and it has 
been negatived by the provisions of the statute law in India. 
Section 240 
of the Government of India Act, 
1935, places 
restrictions 
and limitations on the exercise of the pleasure of. the 
C1·own and these restrictions must be given 
effect 
to. 
They 
arc 
imperative and mandatory. Therefore whenever there 
is a breach 
of restrictions imposed 
by the 
statute by 
the Government or the 
Crown the matter is justiciable and the aggrieved party is entitled 
to suitable relief at the hands of the 
court. 
Government servants 
are entitled to relief like any 
other 
person 
under 
the ordinary 
law, and 
that relief must be 
regulated by 
the 
Code of Civil 
Procedure. 
Puniab Provina v. Pandit Tara Chand 
([1947] 
F.C.R. 
89) 
approved. 
High Commissioner for India and Pakistan v. l.M. Lall ([1948] 
L.R. 75 I.A. 225) distinguished. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JuRisDicTION : 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 70 of 1952. 
Appeal by special 
leave from the Judgment and 
Decree dated the 5th May, 1949, of the High Court of 
Judicature 
at Patna 
(Manohar 
Lall and Mahabir 
Prasad JJ.) in 
Appeal 
from 
Appellate 
Decree No. 
2091 of 1946. 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India ( G. N. 
Joshi and Porns A. Mehta, with him) for the appellant. 
S. P. Sinha (Numddin Ahmed, with him) for the 
respondent. 
1954. February 11. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
MAHA JAN C.J.-This is an appeal by the State of 
Rihar against the judgment of the High Court of 
Judicature at Patna whereby the High Court passed 
a decree for arrears of salary of the respondent against 
the State from the 30th July, 1940, up to the <late of 
the institution of the suit. 
The undisputed facts of the case are : That the 
respondent was appointed a Sub-Inspector of Police 
by the Inspector-General of Police, Bihar and Orissa, 
in 
January, 
1920. 
In 
the year 
1937 
departmental 
proceedings were taken against him and he was found 
guilty of .cowardice and of not preparing search lists 
and was 
punished 
by 
demotion for 
ten years. On 
appeal, the Deputy Inspector-General of Poli<:e held 
1954 
T 114 State of 
Bihar 
v. 
Abdul Majid. 
1954 
The Stale Dj 
Bihar 
v. 
Abdul Majid. 
Mahajan C. J. 
788 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1954] 
that the 
respondent 
was 
guilty 
of cowardice 
but 
acquitted 
him of the other charge. By an order 
dated the 23rd July, 
1940, which was communicated 
to the respondent on the 29th of July, 1940, the

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