9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (11) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the date of their birth till the date of their attaining majority. On September 13, 1946, some two-and-a-half years prior to the merger of the then State of Jodhpur with the United States of Rajasthan (which event occurred on April 7, 1949), the then Ruler of 1. Order No. C.B./7114 dated 13th September, 1946. (Ex. 1). 2. By certificate granted under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. the said State passed order Ex. 1 which is the foundation of the suits giving rise to the present group of appeals. The said order in so far as material reads as under:-- His Highness the Maharaja Sahib Bahadur has been pleased to order that with a view to making suitable provision for the maintenance of younger Maharajkumar and Shri Baiji Lal Sahiba: (i) XXXXX (ii) xxxxx (iii) An annual allowance of ₹ 30,000 per annum each be granted to all younger Maharajkumars from the dates of their birth for the period of their minority. (iv) XXXXXX (v) xxxxxxx. The amounts claimed by each of the four sons in the suits instituted by them in 1955 was in respect of the claim for annual allowance by way of grant at ₹ 30,000 per annum computed retrospe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the four plaintiffs and not in his capacity as the Sovereign Ruler of the State inasmuch as the order for payment was not supported by any law or custom having the force of law in the then State of Jodhpur. (2). The cash allowance ordered to be paid to the four plaintiffs as per Order (Ex. 1) retrospectively for the past period preceding the date of making of the order was in substance a gift by the ruler in his personal capacity to his children and not an enforce- able obligation incurred by the Sovereign Ruler vis-a-vis the plaintiffs. (3) On the aforesaid premises the amount which had not yet been recovered in respect of the past period could not be recovered from the State of Rajasthan as there was no legal and enforceable obligation against the said State. It was contended before the High Court that on taking into account the true nature of the order (Ex. 1) it was a law within the meaning of Section 3 (ii) of Ordinance No. 1 of 1949, the order had all the characteristics of law that is to say, of a binding rule of conduct of the will of the Sovereign . Since this was a law in the Sovereign State of Jodhpur, its operation continued on the formation initially of the Unite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 30,000 per annum is in respect of the preceding years. The four sons had. admittedly, already been maintained and brought up with due dignity and decorum, prior to the passing of the order in question. Since they had already been maintained in a manner and style befitting their status and dignity, at the expense of the State, there was no question of granting any allowance in respect of the (past) period during which they had already been maintained. There is therefore no escape from the conclusion that it was by way of a gift albeit. without saying so in so many words. The fact that the expression 'gift' has not been employed did not detract from this obvious conclusion. It was an amount ordered to be paid by the Ruler to his sons. It was clearly a gift, inasmuch as it is not shown that till the date of the order any obligation had been incurred by the grantor in favour of the grantees either under any law or under 1. As per order Ex.1 dated 13th September.1946. 2. As disclosed by the Budget Estimate of the State of Jodhpur recorded at Ex. A-10 to Ex. A-12. any custom. It has of course been argued on behalf of the appellants that under the 'custom&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atia payment in the nature of a gift which could not 1. Ex. A.6 dated 2. Ex.1 be enforced against the State. The relevant part of the order cannot be construed as a 'law' obtaining in the then State of Jodhpur. And accordingly it cannot be held that the said order continued to prevail as a 'law' in the State of Rajasthan under the 1949 ordinance or any other law. The order cannot therefore be enforced against the State of Rajasthan treating it as a 'law' creating a legally enforce- able obligation. It was contended that the purpose of granting maintenance allowance in cash to meet the expenditure from the civil list was to enable the junior members of the Ruler's family to accumulate some surplus to help them when they become jagirdars in due course on attaining majority. It was argued that if the allowance had been granted earlier, the allowance could have been accumulated by the beneficiaries and since it was not granted earlier, it was granted with retrospective effect. We cannot accede to this submission. In so far as it relates to the period anterior to the passing of the order (stretching from 8 to 21 years) it cannot be said to be an orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ruler of Jodhpur in favour of the appellants, it is futile to contend that it is a grant of a 'jagir' in this sense for no question of alienation of land revenue in favour of the appellants is involved. All that the Ruler has done is to order that a particular amount of money be paid in respect of a specified period anterior to the date of the order at the specified rate. There is nothing in Thakur Amarsinghji's case which could come to the rescue of the appellants in support of the contention that the allowance in question would constitute a 'Jagir'. It was argued as a matter of logical corrollary that since it was a jagir, the order confering the jagir could be construed as a 'law' even if it was not a legislative measure promulgated by the Ruler. Since the first premise that the allowance constitutes 'Jagir' is found to be lacking in substance the submission urged as a corrollary of this premise must also fail to the grounds as a-matter of logical necessity. Reliance was also placed on Madhaorao Phalke v. The State of Madhya Bharat, [1961] 1 S.C.R.p. 957 in support of the contention that the grant made in favour of the appellants would co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them in such a detailed manner it is difficult to distinguish them from statutes or laws; in any event they must be treated as rules or regulations having the force of law... Far from supporting the claim of the appellants, the decision in Madhaorao's case highlights the fact that the order in question providing for payment of annual allowance for the past years during which the appellants had already been maintained by the State exchequer lacks in the essential ingredients which would justify characterising the order as a rule or a regulation. To put it somewhat crudely, divesting of refinement, the order merely directs payment of a specified sum to the appellants which payment has no nexus with any services rendered by them or any customary right enjoyed by them by virtue of their status as junior members of the family, but 'merely by reason of the fact that the appellants were the sons of the Ruler on whom the Ruler intended to confer cash benefit. In our opinion, what has been granted under the aforesaid order is nothing but an ex-gratia payment or a gift. Lastly it was contended that the junior members of the family of the Ruler were entitled to a maintenance a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
