Judgement

Appeal (No. 14 of 1936) in forma pauperis, by special leave, from a decree of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction (December 19, 1933) affirming a decree of the High Court in its original jurisdiction (October 17, 1930).

The appellant, R. T. Rangachari, was a Sub-Inspector of Police. In 1927 charges of irregular and improper conduct in the exercise of his duties were made against him. After an official inquiry the responsible official was of opinion that the charges should be dropped, and the appellant, after a medical certificate had been granted in respect of illness, was retired from the service with am invalid pension. Three months later the matter was reopened by the successors in office of the officials, and an order was made purporting to remove the appellant from the service from the date upon which he was invalided, and his pension was stopped.

The appellant instituted proceedings against the respondent, the Secretary of State for India in Council, seeking a declaration that he was not liable to be removed from the service subsequent to his retirement, and he also claimed damages.

The facts and the relevant statutory provisions appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The trial judge (Waller J.) and the Appellate Court (Beasley C.J. and Bardswell J.) were both of opinion that in substance the claim was for a declaration that the appellant was entitled to his pension, and both Courts held that the action was one which, by virtue of the provisions of The Pensions Act

(XXIII. of 1871), a Civil Court was prohibited from entertaining. The appeal is reported at ( 1934) I. L.

R. 57 M. 857.

1936. Nov. 5, 6, 9 and 10. J. M. Parikh and Abdul Majid for the appellant. When the Government of India Act was passed all the rules made thereunder became part of the contract of service. Art. 351 of the Civil Service Regulations, which provides that " future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of a pension," was, under s. 96B., sub-s. 4, confirmed, and there has therefore been introduced into the contract of service a term which includes the grant of a pension. The terms of the contract of employment are those stated in the rules, and if, therefore, there has been a breach of the rules it would be against the terms of the contract. [Reference was made to Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State for India (( 1861) 5 Bom. H. C.

R. (Appx.) 1.), and Secretary of State for India in Council v. Shreegobinda Chaudhuri. (( 1932) I- L.

R. 59 C. 1289.)] Wherever there is a contract and a breach of it, an action lies against the Secretary of State for India in Council.

[Lord Roche. I should think that that is right if the word contract is confined to meaning a contract which is enforceable.]

R. T. Rangachari V. Secretary of State for India in Council 213

A breach of such a contract by an officer of the Government in his executive capacity is not an act of State, or a Sovereign act, as the Court below has held see per Lord Atkin in Eshugbayi Eleko v. Government of Nigeria (Officer Administering). ([ 1931] A. C. 662, 671.) In Ram Das Hazra v. Secretary of State for India in Council (( 1912) 18 C. W. N. 106.), is given a list of cases decided before 1919; they are cases where it was decided that the plaintiffs held their offices during pleasure or at pleasure.

It was stated in Shenton v. Smith ([ 1895] A. C. 229.), that " A Colonial Government is on the same footing as the Home Government as to the employment and dismissal of servants of the Crown ; and in the absence of special contract they hold their offices during the pleasure of the Crown and the Board were of opinion that the regulations in that case were mere directions and had no legal effect. In Gould v. Stuart ([ 1896] A. C. 575.) the position was different, the Board being of opinion that it was inconsistent with the Act under the provisions of which the plaintiff held his appointment to conclude that the office was held at