JUDGMENT - (1) Arather interesting, and by no means easy, Constitutional question arises in this appeal. The plaintiff, whose suit was dismissed by the learned City Civil Court Judge on a preliminary issue, was a guard in the North Western Railway in Grade I and he was appointed on 24-4-1929, being confirmed on 30-1-1930. Then for a short time he acted as Grade II guard and he was made permanent in that Grade in 1944. On partition he opted for India and he served in the B. B and C. I. Railway as it existed in 1947. On 31-1-1950 his post in the North Western Railway was equated to a Grade C post and he filed this suit stating that the order passed on 31-1-1950 ordering him to work as a C Grade guard was invalid. He also sought a declaration that he was entitled to rank as a B Grade guard from the date when he was absorbed as a guard in the B. B. and C. I. Railway, and he also claimed a declaration that he was entitled to rank in seniority as a guard and to receive promotions, pay, confirmation, allowance, contribution in the Provident Fund, etc. on the length of his service as a guard on the North Western Railway commencing from 29-4-1929, and he wanted an order that the various emoluments to which he would be entitled on his being treated as a Grade B guard should be paid to him. The suit was filed against the Union of India represented by the General Manager, Western Railway, in which the B. B. and C. I. Railway had merged after Independence, and the question that arises is whether the plaintiff has any cause of action against the Union of India.

(2) The question may be posed in this way. Can a servant of the State sue the State in respect of any condition of service relating to his employment? TO put the question in different way, would it be correct to say that the statutory rules framed by the Railway conferred any right upon a Government servant, which right he can assert and enforce in a Court of law ? Or, again to put the same questioning a different language, are the rules framed by the Railway Authority, which are undoubtedly statutory rules, mere rules of guidance and administrative rules, or do they constitute a contract between the Union of India and its employee? The case of the plaintiff is that under the Indian Railway Establishment Code, which is a statutory Code, he has the right to be posted as a Grade B guard, that his right has been infringed, and he is entitled to come to a Civil Court against the Union of India to enforce his right.

(3) Turning to the Constitution, Part XIV of the Constitution deals with services under the Union and the States, and Article 310 provides that every person who is a member of the defence service or of a civil service of the Union or of an all-India service or holds any post connected with defence or any civil post under the Union holds office during the pleasure of the President. The latter part of that Article, with which we are not concerned, deals with members of the civil service of a State. As will be noticed, Article 310 is made subject to any provision expressly made in the Constitution itself. That is the only exception which the Constitution has permitted to that Article. Unless, therefore, we find a specific provision in some part of the Constitution giving to a Government servant a tenure different from the tenure provided for in Article 310, every member of the civil service holds his office during the pleasure of the President. Those statutory exceptions in the case of Judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court, the Accountant General and certain other high dignitaries of the State whose tenure of office is a fixed tenure and who are not holding their office at the pleasure of the President. Now, the expression "holding office during the pleasure of the President" is not a new expression introduced by the Constitution. It is an expression well known to the English Common Law. Under the English Common Law, every servant in England holds his office during the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document