JUDGMENT :

C.L. Soni, J.

These appeals under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure are filed by original plaintiffs. They filed suits seeking declaration that they being employees of the erstwhile Junagadh State, they could not be retired at the age of 58 years but would be entitled to continue in service till 60 years of age as they would continue to be governed by the rules of erstwhile Junagadh State even after its merger into Saurashtra State which merged into bilingual State of Bombay and then Gujarat State on bifurcation from Bombay State.

2. The appellant of Second Appeal No. 86 of 1997 had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 700 of 1985 and his case in the suit is that he was initially appointed by the Revenue Commissioner vide order dated 10.2.1948 as writer clerk in the erstwhile Junagadh State, that the Junagadh State merged into Saurashtra State and thereafter in Bombay State and then, the State of Bombay was bifurcated and State of Gujarat came into existence with effect from 1.5.1960 and the services of the plaintiff came to be allocated to the newly formed State of Gujarat. During the regime of the Junagadh State, the Junagadh State had framed State Account Code and as per Clause 241-A(13) of the said Code, the superannuation age was provided at the age of 60 years, that the said Rules of Junagadh State were still applicable to the plaintiff and, therefore the plaintiff was to retire at the age of 60 years i.e. 31.10.1986, that the Collector Junagadh passed order dated 30.9.1983 to retire the plaintiff with effect from 31.10.1984 on plaintiff's completing the age of 58 years as on 9.10.1984, that as per the agreement with the Covenanting State, the service condition of the plaintiff were protected till the age of 60 years and that rule 161 of the BCSRs which provided retirement at 58 years was against the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. That as per Section 115(7) of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956, such rules could not be framed to the disadvantage of the plaintiff and, therefore, the suit was filed by the plaintiff.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendant State of Gujarat and the Collector Junagadh by filing written statement at Exh. 10 and it was stated that the new rules have come into force and because of the option exercised by the plaintiff for being governed by the new rules, the plaintiff now cannot claim benefit under the resolution of the erstwhile State of Junagadh.

4. The appellant of Second Appeal No. 20 of 1987 had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 103 of 1986 and his case was that he was appointed as book clerk on 22.12.1943 in superior services of erstwhile State of Junagadh, confirmed by order dated 12.12.1946 and promoted as Record Clerk on 23.11.1947, that the State of Junagadh was merged with the erstwhile State of Saurashtra and on 30.1.1949, Ordinance No.319/49 was issued as per which, the Raj Pramukh of the erstwhile State of Saurashtra had guaranteed under Article 16 that the Service conditions of Covenanting State employees shall not be changed to their disadvantage, that the appellant was therefore entitled to retire at the age of 60 years of service as per Article 223-A of the Junagadh Account Code, that when the Saurashtra State came to be merged with the bilingual State of Bombay, it was guaranteed that the service conditions of its employees shall not be changed to their disadvantage, that on 1.5.1960, State of Gujarat came into existence by virtue of the Bombay State Reorganisation Act, 1960 and thus, the appellant enjoyed all the protection of statutory guarantee given earlier and thus, would be entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years, that still, by order dated 10.10.1985, the appellant was asked to compulsorily retire from service with effect from 31.1.1986 with six other persons, that such order dated 10.10.1985 passed by the respondent authority is illegal, null and void.

5. The suit was resisted by the State Authority stating that the Civil