Judgments:-Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.-The plaintiff was a member of the Indian Civil Service, who joined duty at Madras in October, 1937. He was Sub-Collector and Joint Magistrate at Dindigul and on 2nd June, 1947, he went on leave. While on leave at Madras, he received a memorandum issued by the Government of India, Home Department, dated 18th June, 1947, Exhibit P-2, asking him to communicate within 10 days of the receipt of the letter whether he wished to continue in service of the Government in view of the withdrawal of the Secretary of State’s control over His Majesty’s services consequent on the intention to transfer power from the British Government to Indian hands, or whether he desired to retire from service. He sent a reply to the Joint Secretary, Home Department, Government of India, with a copy of the same to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Madras on 2nd July, 1947, Exhibit P-3, expressing his desire to continue to serve the Madras Government. On 9th August, 1947, he received a demi-official communication from Mr. Scott Brown, Chief Secretary to the Government of Madras, Exhibit P-6, dated 7th August, 1946, informing him that the Government have decided not to retain him in service after 15th August, 1947, that his services would be terminated on the afternoon of 14th August, 1947 and his present leave would be automatically converted into leave preparatory to retirement, that he might also apply for the extension of leave, if eligible, and that a formal communication would issue to him shortly from the Government of India terminating his services as from 14th August, 1947, afternoon. It is the case of the plaintiff that thereafter he had an interview with the then Chief Minister of Madras, Sri O.P. Ramaswami Reddiar and also the then Chief Secretary, Mr. W. Scott Brown, and was given to understand by both of them that the sanction of the Secretary of State for India had been obtained for the termination of his services and nothing could therefore be done. He was granted leave to which he was entitled, which extended up to 10th April, 1949. The plaintiff’s case is that, having been assured by the highest authorities in Madras that the termination of his services had been ordered by, or with the consent of, the Secretary of State for India, he believed those statements that the Secretary of State for India who was the only authority empowered to remove the plaintiff from service, had issued the said orders and therefore accepted the compensation paid to him. He, however, did not receive any formal orders from the Government of India, as promised in the letter of 7th August, 1947, Exhibit P-6. He thereafter met another member of the Indian Civil Service, Mr. R. M. Seshadri, whose services had similarly been terminated and he came to know from Mr. Seshadri that the latter had instituted a suit for a declaration that the order terminating his services was illegal and void. On 8th June, 1949, he wrote Exhibit P-12 to the Premier, Government of Madras, asking for reinstatement, followed by another letter of 20th June, 1949, Exhibit P-13, to which the Chief Secretary to the Government of Madras replied by Exhibit P-14, dated nth August, 1949 that the Government regretted their inability to reinstate him in service. He sent two communications to the Government of Madras and to the Government of India, on 15th April, 1951 and 7th October, 1951, respectively and his case,is. that he did not receive any reply from either. But the Government of India appears to have sent a reply on 10th November, 1951, Exhibit P-15, informing him that the Government of Madras was authorised to terminate his services with effect from , 15th August, 1947 and granting him the compensation and stating that there was no-need for any formal communication from the Government of India to him direct. The plaintiff’s case is that the order of 7th August, 1947, which was passed by the Government of Madras terminating his services as and from the af

Click Here to Read the rest of this document