Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1956 DIGILAW 51 (KER)

P. C. Madhavan v. State

1956-06-08

M.S.MENON

body1956
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was one of the two permanent chief physicians in the Ayurvedic Department of the Cochin State in the grade of Rs. 60-120 from 1.9.1947 (16.1.1123). The grade of pay Rs. 60-120, was raised to Rs. 80-125 from 12.2.1949 (1.7.1124). The other Chief Physician - he was senior to the petitioner - was one Vasudevan Nambissan. He retired from Government service on 22.8.1950. 2. The 3rd respondent was the Asst. Director of Indian Medicines in the Cochin Ayurvedic Department. He was in grade of Rs. 150-200. Subsequent to the integration of the States of Travancore and Cochin the Government issued Ext. A dated 17.3.1950. By the said proceedings the post of the Assistant Director of Indian Medicines was abolished as from the date of the proceedings and the 3rd respondent was given the post of Senior Inspector in the grade of Rs. 100-125 and allowed to draw as personal pay his salary in the grade of Rs. 150-200. 3. Ext. A maintained the number of Ayurvedic physicians in the integrated State at 96 without any reduction. The highest grade for the physicians was fixed as Rs. 125-150. There were three posts in that grade, two of which were allotted to the Cochin State personnel. Nambissan got one of those posts and the petitioner the other. 4. By the Government Proceedings dated 31.7.1954 (Ext. C) it was ordered as follows: "In the integration G.P., Sri. Ravivarma Thampuran, who was the Asst. Director in Cochin in the scale of Rs. 150-200 was nominated as senior Inspector on Rs. 100-125. But as it is not correct to show him as permanent in the lower grade of Rs. 100-125 while his juniors are given permanent places on Rs. 125-150, he has been assigned one of the two posts of Chief physicians on Rs. 125-150 and shown as on other duty as Inspector on Rs. 100-125 holding a personal scale of Rs. 150-200. The gradation list of the Chief physician (Rs. 125-150) and Inspector (Rs. 100-125) has been prepared on the above basis". As a result the petitioner was confirmed as a chief physician in the grade of Rs.125-150 only from 22.8.1950, the date on which Nambissan retired from service and not from 17.3.1950, the date on which both he and Nambissan were placed in the said grade. 125-150) and Inspector (Rs. 100-125) has been prepared on the above basis". As a result the petitioner was confirmed as a chief physician in the grade of Rs.125-150 only from 22.8.1950, the date on which Nambissan retired from service and not from 17.3.1950, the date on which both he and Nambissan were placed in the said grade. According to the petitioner this arrangement deprived him of a permanent post in the Department during the period between 17.3.1950 and 22.8.1950 and though it has not affected his current salary it will affect adversely both his pension and his chances of promotion. He has also a case that the 3rd respondent has not got the necessary qualifications for being appointed as a Chief Physician and that his appointment is bad on that account. The latter contention, it is agreed, need not be considered in this petition. 5. Prima facie the petitioner's contention that he was without a permanent post in the Department during the period from 17.3.1950 to 22.8.1950 as a result of the arrangement appears to be correct and he may have room for complaint in spite of the assurance of the Government Pleader that the Government will see to it that neither his pension nor his legitimate chances of promotion will be affected thereby. It is, however, unnecessary for me to evaluate the contention as I have come to the conclusion that even if it is upheld I am not in a position to give him any relief in this petition. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the action of the Government spells a violation of Art.19 of the Integration Covenant and Art.311 of the Constitution. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the action of the Government spells a violation of Art.19 of the Integration Covenant and Art.311 of the Constitution. In AIR 1955 SC 540 it was contended on behalf of the State of Bombay that the petitioners were not parties to the agreement of merger and letters of guarantee on which they relied, that as a result they were not entitled to enforce the same and that even if they were treated as parties thereto, the disputes having arisen "out of the provisions of the agreements and covenants which were entered into or executed before the commencement of the Constitution by the Rulers of the respective States to which the Government of the Dominion of India was a party" the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to interfere in the said disputes by virtue of the provisions of Art.363 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court said that they did not feel called upon to pronounce upon the validity or otherwise of the said contentions. "for the simple reason that the petitioners would be out of court either way. If they were deemed to be parties to the agreements of merger and letters of guarantee they would be faced with the bar to the maintainability of the petitions under Art.363 of the Constitution which lays down that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall have jurisdiction in any dispute arising out of any provision of a treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad or other similar instrument which was entered into or executed before the commencement of the Constitution by any Ruler of an Indian State and to which the Government of the Dominion of India was a party. If on the other hand they were deemed not to have been parties to the same they would not be the contracting parties and would certainly not be able to enforce these obligations". It follows that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under Art.19 of the Covenant and that it is unnecessary for me to consider whether there has been any violation of the said article or not. 7. Art.311 relates to disciplinary actions against civil servants by way of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank. It follows that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under Art.19 of the Covenant and that it is unnecessary for me to consider whether there has been any violation of the said article or not. 7. Art.311 relates to disciplinary actions against civil servants by way of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank. No disciplinary action has been taken against the petitioner and the Article cannot possibly have any application to the wrong which according to him he has suffered at the hands of the Government. 8. In the light of what is stated above this petition has to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed, though in the circumstances of the case, without any order as to costs.