( 1 ) THIS is plaintiff's appeal from the dismissal of his suit for recovery of the difference between the salary paid to him and the salary and perquisites which he claimed to be entitled to, for the period from 1st November 1947 to 15th April 1959. He was initially employed as Diwan in the erstwhie Alipura State under an order dated 1st October 1945. On the merger of that State and certain other states in 1948, he was taken on in the service of the newly constituted United state of Vindhya Pradesh. Eventually, he was absorbed in Vindhya Pradesh (Part c) State. His services were continuous right from 1st October 1945 and were recognised as such by the new State of Vindhya Pradesh. In 1955, he was given an option to accept the Pre-absorption (Ex-States) Terms and Conditions as a whole. He opted for the service conditions as a whole under which he was in the service of the Alipura State, but the pay slip, which he received, was not in accordance with those service conditions for which he opted. He, therefore, represented to the State Government, but his representation was turned down. While resisting the suit, the defendant-State of Madhya Pradesh admitted all material facts. It is not in dispute that there was continuity, all through, of the plaintiff's services, but the contention is that he is not entitled to the same terms and conditions on which he was in the service of the Alipura State. The learned trial Judge disallowed the plaintiff's claim merely on the ground that the terms and conditions on which the plaintiff was initially appointed, did not continue to be operative on the formation of the Union of Vindhya Pradesh States and that as a result of integration, the plaintiff must be deemed to have elected to serve the new State on such terms and conditions as the new Stale chose to impose.

( 2 ) THE real controversy in this appeal is whether, on an option having been given to the plaintiff and the plaintiff having exercised the option, he acquired a right to be remunerated according to the service conditions for which he opted. We shall now state the material facts. (1) By an order dated 1st October 1945 (Ex. P-1), the plaintiff was appointed Diwan of Alipura State in the grade of Rs. 500--50-800, with the following perquisites : (i) free furnished house for residence; (ii) a motor car at State expense for his use; (iii) fuel and light free of charge; and (iv)two domestic servants at State expense. The services were not terminable except for defalcation of Stale money or for gross negligence of duly. The period of service was 20 years to be computed from 2nd November 1944. The other terms and conditions are not relevant for this suit. By a letter, dated 11th October 1947, his services were terminated. He made a representation to the Regional commissioner, Bundelkhand States, which remained pending till the States of bundelkhand were integrated into the United State of Vindhya Pradesh in March 1948. The new Government accepted his representation and held that his removal from Alipura State Service was irregular and inoperative. The order of the government was communicated to the plaintiff by a letter of the Chief Secretary, dated 3rd July 1948 (Ex. P-2 or Ex. D-4), the relevant portion of which reads thus :

"the Vindhya Pradesh Government examined your representation thoroughly and came to the conclusion that 'your removal from Alipura state service was irregular and could not be held to be operative'. It was, therefore, decided by the V. P. Government that 'you will be regarded as having all this time been in Alipura State service, i. e. , V. P. Government service from the time the charge was taken over by this government from the Alipura State. ' As a result this decision of government you were paid Rupees two thousand six hundred eighty three, annas five and four pies (Rs. 2,683-5-4) on account of the arrears of your pay from 1st January 1948 till llth June 1948 and you were posted as Additional Deputy