JUDGMENT

MADON, J. :— The appellant joined the service of the former Indian State of Hyderabad prior to the coming into force of the Constitution of India. On the coming into force of the Constitution of India on January 26, 1950, the former Indian State of Hyderabad became apart of the territory of India as a Part B State and the appellant continued in the service of that State. He retired from service on January 21, 1956, as Secretary to the Government of Hyderabad, Legal Department. The appellant claimed that he was entitled to be paid the salary of a High Court Judge from October 1, 1947, being the date from which the recommendations of a Pay and Service Commission which had been set up had been implemented up to the date of his retirement from service. The appellant also claimed that he was entitled to receive a pension of Rs. 1,000 a month in the Government of India currency being the maximum pension admissible under the rules in that behalf. Both the aforesaid claims were negatived by the Government in spite of several representations made by the appellant. Ultimately, in order to enforce the aforesaid two claims, the appellant filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being Writ Petition No. 1613 of 1972, against the State of Andhra Pradesh which was the principal successor State to the erstwhile State of Hyderabad. A learned single Judge of that High Court rejected the claim made by the appellant with respect to salary on the ground that the said claim had been negatived by the Government as far back as 1955 and merely by making representations to the Government he could not keep that claim alive. So far as the amount of pension payable to the appellant was concerned, the defence of the respondent was that the amount of maximum pension payable under the rules in that behalf was not Rs.1,000 a month in the Government of India currency but was O. S. Rs. 1,000 a month that is, Osmania Sikka Rs. 1,000 (Osmania Sikka being the currency of the former Indian State of Hyderabad) and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to receive a pension of only Rs. 857.15 per month being the equivalent in the Government of India currency of O. S. Rs. 1000.

2. In order to understand this defence taken by the respondent, it is necessary to mention that at the date when the appellant joined service, his terms and conditions of service were governed by the Hyderabad Civil Service Regulations. Under Regulation 6 of the said Regulations, a Government servants claim to pension was to be regulated by the rules in force at the time when the Government servant retired from the service of the Government. Under Cl. (b) of Regulation 313. The maximum pension ordinarily admissible for superior service to which the appellant belonged was to be O. S. Rs. 1,000 a month. After the former Indian State of Hyderabad became a part of the territory of India, Hyderabad currency was demonetized with effect from April 1, 1953 and by Section 2 of the Hyderabad Currency Demonetization (Consequential and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1953 (Hyderabad Act No. 1 of 1953), references express or implied inter alia in any Regulation in force in the Hyderabad State immediately before the commencement of the said Act were to be construed as references to the equivalent amount in the Government of India currency according to the standard rate of exchange, namely 7 O. S. rupees for 6 I. G. rupees. (Indian Government rupees). The Hyderabad Civil Service Regulations were replaced with effect from October 1, 1954 by the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules which were made by the Rajpramukh of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Under Rule 4 of the said Rules also a Government servants claim to pension was to be regulated by the rules in force at the time when he retired from the service of the Government. Under Cl. (8) of Rule 299(