JUDGMENT :

J.B. MEHTA, J.

1. Both the matters raise common questions and, therefore, they are deposed of by this common order. This is an unfortunate case of a Government servant whose services had been loaned to the public, municipal body and who is since for years rendered unemployed and is without wages. It is surprising that both the public bodies admitted the fact that they have not legally terminated the services of this public servant; still, the statutory guarantee embraced in Article 16 and the protection guaranteed by Article 311 have been denied to this public servant by the arbitrary and irresponsible action of the State Government. Our learned Brother had granted a declaration of continuance of service without going into other two relevant questions as to whether there was a loan of Government servant's services, whether he had been absorbed in Panchayat service. That is why the declaration has proved futile until this legal tangle is first resolved as to whose servant he is.

2. The short facts which have given rise to these two matters are as under:

The concerned servant was by the then Dhrangadhra State taken up as a Sanitary Inspector on October 16, 1944 in Halvad Munic