1955 (9) TMI 71 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the termination of the respondent's services.
2. Automatic termination of services due to political changes.
3. Applicability of statutory guarantees under section 240 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
4. Interpretation of section 10(2) of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, and article 7(1) of the India (Provisional Constitution) Order, 1947.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the termination of the respondent's services:
The respondent, a member of the Indian Civil Service, challenged the termination of his services by the Government of Madras, claiming it was null, void, and inoperative. The High Court had granted a declaration in favor of the respondent, but the State of Madras and the Union of India appealed. The respondent argued that the termination violated the statutory guarantee under section 240 of the Government of India Act, 1935. The defense contended that the transfer of power to the Dominion of India on August 15, 1947, resulted in the automatic termination of the respondent's services.

2. Automatic termination of services due to political changes:
The Attorney-General argued that the political change on August 15, 1947, created a new Sovereign State of India, resulting in the automatic termination of pre-existing contracts of service under the previous government. This contention was based on three grounds: the creation of a new Sovereign State, the termination of the contract with the Secretary of State for India, and the statutory changes effective from August 15, 1947. The Court analyzed the announcements and statutory provisions leading up to the political changes, concluding that the services of the respondent were automatically terminated due to the political transition.

3. Applicability of statutory guarantees under section 240 of the Government of India Act, 1935:
The respondent relied on section 240 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which provided statutory guarantees for civil servants. However, the Court noted that the Indian Independence Act, 1947, and subsequent legislative orders significantly altered the tenure of such services. The Secretary of State's services ceased, and the statutory protections no longer applied after August 15, 1947. The Court held that the essential structure of the Secretary of State's services was altered, and the statutory protection attached to the contracts came to an automatic and legal termination.

4. Interpretation of section 10(2) of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, and article 7(1) of the India (Provisional Constitution) Order, 1947:
Section 10(2) of the Indian Independence Act guaranteed the same conditions of service to persons who continued to serve under the new Government. However, the Court emphasized that this provision did not guarantee continuation in service but only applied to those who continued to serve. Article 7(1) of the India (Provisional Constitution) Order provided that persons holding civil posts immediately before the appointed day were deemed to continue in service, subject to any general or special orders or arrangements. The Court concluded that the special orders or arrangements referred to the actions taken in pursuance of the Viceroy's announcement and the decisions made by the appropriate Government not to retain certain individuals, including the respondent.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the respondent's services were automatically terminated due to the political changes on August 15, 1947. The special orders and arrangements made in pursuance of the Viceroy's announcement resulted in the respondent's services not being continued. The Court found that the High Court had misconstrued the significance of the phrase "special orders or arrangements affecting his case" in article 7(1) of the India (Provisional Constitution) Order, 1947. The appeal was allowed without costs.