ORDER A.H. Khan, J. The plaintiff on being retrenched from the post of the Record-Keeper (he was serving in the office of the District Superintendent, Police, Morena) filed this suit against the Government of Madhya Bharat for a declaration that the order of retrenchment was illegal and inoperative and claimed his pay during the continuance of the suit. The State of Madhya Bharat resisted the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had been retrenched under the Retrenchment Rules. It was also said that under the Covenant the Government had the right to do so. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and this decision was upheld in appeal. This is plaintiff's second appeal. The short question to be considered in this appeal is whether the Government of Madhya Bharat has had the right to retrench the plaintiff and whether such retrenchment amounts to removal from service so as to attract Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The State of Madhya Bharat came into being as a result of the merger of 22 States. It was not possible for the New State to absorb all the servants of the Covenanting States. The merger necessarily involved the reorganisation of the various services of the several integrating States. To achieve this end the Government formed an Integration Committee which examined each case on merits. Those who could not be absorbed were given their dues and retrenched. Article 16 of the Covenant which is the basis of merger did not guarantee that every person serving in a Covenanting State shall be retained in service. All that it said was that servants of Covenanting States that may be retained in service would not be placed in less advantageous position than the one they were in before the merger. The Madhya Bharat Government made Retrenchment Rules and after screening every individual, either retained him, or, finding him surplus to the requirement, retrenched him. As a result of the Reorganisation Scheme the plaintiff was retrenched under the Rules and his grievance is that he should not have been retrenched. The Madhya Bharat Government made Retrenchment Rules and after screening every individual, either retained him, or, finding him surplus to the requirement, retrenched him. As a result of the Reorganisation Scheme the plaintiff was retrenched under the Rules and his grievance is that he should not have been retrenched. The position of servant consequent upon merger of one State into another was considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, who in Rajbir Amarsingh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1958 SC 228 observed:- It is well established that when one State is absorbed in another, whether by accession, conquest, merger or integration all contracts of service between the prior Government and its servants automatically terminate and thereafter those who elect to serve in the new State, and are taken on by it, serve on such terms and conditions as the New State may choose to impose. This is nothing more (though on a more exalted scale), than an application of the principle that underlies the law of Master and Servant when there is a change of masters. The creation of the New State did not guarantee continuance of service of the former employee. The retrenchment of the plaintiff in these circumstances under a scheme of reorganisation cannot amount to removal within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. I, therefore, see no substance in the appeal filed by the plaintiff. It is dismissed without any order being made as to costs of this appeal. Appeal dismissed