The liability of a successor State under Section 88 of the State Reorganization Act, 1956 includes a liability to reinstate a Government servant wrongly dismissed by the predecessor State.

1. An important question of law arises out of a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the State of Bombay. The preliminary objection raised relates to the maintainability of the petition against the present State of Bombay. This decision will govern the preliminary objection raised in three cases, viz., Miscellaneous Petition No. 523 of 1956, Miscellaneous Petition No. 470 of 1956 and Special Civil Application No. 73 of 1957. The consideration of this question turns on the interpretation of Ss. 87, 88 and 116 of the State Reorganization Act, 1956, Act XXXVII of 1956, hereinafter called the Act.

2. The case in general that falls for our consideration is that petitioners before us were the services of the former State of Madhya Pradesh. Their services were terminated by the orders of the Government of the then State of Madhya Pradesh prior to the date the Act came into force. Two of the petitioners were serving on the date of termination of their service in the territories which how form part of the State of Bombay. Two of the petitioners had challenged the orders of their dismissal by petitioners under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the then High Court of Judicature at Nagpur, on the ground of contravention of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. These petitions were filed against the State of Madhya Pradesh. Their cases have come on transfer before this Court on a certificate issued by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur under S. 59(2) of the Act. On the applications of these petitioners the State of Bombay is joined as a party to their petitions. The remaining petitioner has directly come to this Court after the State Reorganization Act came into force. All of them claim that their petition is maintainable against the State of Bombay and that the State of Bombay is liable to reinstate them or give them such relief as is available to them under law, on the orders of dismissal being quashed by this Court. The question is whether they are entitled to the relief asked by them against the present State of Bombay.

3. There were also other cases pending before this Court arising out of a similar set of facts. In one of those cases, viz., Dr. Surjuprasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1958) 60 Bom. L.R. 1468 F.B. = 1959 - I L.L.J. 572] a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh that no writ could be issued by this Court against the State of Madhya Pradesh in respect of the order of dismissal made by the former State of Madhya Pradesh prior to the date the Act came into force. This question was referred to a Full Bench of this Court and awaiting the decision of the Full Bench these three cases and other cases were kept pending. The Full Bench took the view that this Court could not issue a writ against the present State of Madhya Pradesh or any of its officers and it, therefore, directed that the names of the State of Madhya Pradesh and its officers (the Accountant-General of Madhya Pradesh in that case) should be struck off the record. The Full Bench further directed that the petition should continue against the State of Bombay and should be disposed of in accordance with law.

4. In the course of the judgment of the Full Bench the learned Chief Justice, who delivered the judgment of the Court, observed :

"... If the complaint of the petitioner is that he has been dismissed by the State of Madhya Pradesh and that the State of Madhya Pradesh should reinstate him, noting is easier than for him to file a petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and to get a writ from that High Court. If, on the other hand, the relief he seeks is that the Bombay Government should reinstate him, the Bombay Government being the successor or the Madhya Pradesh Government, then the petition is well founded and could be maintained in this Court and this Court can give him relief if he is entitled to that relief."

It is the petitioners case in all the three petitions that they ar