This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Amarendra Chandra Dev Barma who was serving as a Naib or Tahashildar formerly under the regime of the Maharajah of Tripura and subsequently under the present Govern­ment of Tripura for the issue of a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate Writ setting aside the order of retrenchment passed against him by the District Magistrate on 1-2-1954. (2) The Petitioner was serving as a Naib in the old Tripura State during the regime of the Mahara­jah. He was then suspected to be suffering from leprosy and he was directed in 1946 to appear before Chief Medical Officer, Tripura State by the Sadar Collector (Annexure 2 dated 29-2-56 T. E.). The Medical Officer reported that the disease was some sort of dermatitis in a non-infectious form and the clinical symptoms did not go much in favour of leprosy. After the integration of Tripura in the India Union in 1949 the Petitioner continued as Naib, though no formal order absorbing him in the public service under Article VIII of the Tripura Merger Agreement was passed. Then on 31-10-53 the Dis­trict Magistrate, Tripura, directed the Petitioner to appear before the Director of Health Services, Tri­pura stating that the Petitioner was suspected to be suffering from contagious disease and requesting a report whether it would be prejudicial to other em­ployees to retain him in service (Annexure A). The Director of Health Services reported on p.0-12-53 (Annexure D) that the Petitioner was found to be suffering from Nodular variety of Lep­rosy and his retention in service was likely to be prejudicial to the other employees. Thereupon the order Annexure E dated 1-2-54 which is the order now complained against was passed by the District Magistrate stating that the Petitioner was found un­suitable for absorption after proper screening and he was therefore allowed to go on pension with ef­fect from 15-2-54 and that he will be entitled to full retrenchment benefits as per rules. (3) The Petitioner appealed against this order by Annexure G to the Chief Commissioner and re­quested that pending the decision of the appeal he may be allowed to continue in service. He also stated in the appeal petition that he was ready to undergo fresh medical examination by an Expert at Government cost if so desired by the authority. (3) The Petitioner appealed against this order by Annexure G to the Chief Commissioner and re­quested that pending the decision of the appeal he may be allowed to continue in service. He also stated in the appeal petition that he was ready to undergo fresh medical examination by an Expert at Government cost if so desired by the authority. Evidently the order Annexure E was kept in abey­ance in view of his appeal to the Chief Com­missioner, as he was allowed to continue in service after 15-2-54 and was not retrenched from that date. But on 7-9-54 the District Magistrate passed the order Annexure 5 stating that the Petitioner cannot be allowed to continue in service and that without prejudice to his appeal to the Chief Commissioner he should hand over charge immediately and go on leave to get himself examined by the Director, School of Tropical Medicine in Calcutta for which he will be allowed T. A. as per rules. (4) The Petitioner handed over charge as re­quired. But he was being paid his salary even after that pending his appearance before the Medi­cal Board at Calcutta. He then began insisting on advance T. A. being paid to him for going to Cal­cutta for medical examination (vide Annexure J)-Then various letters passed between Petitioner and die District Magistrate and the Tripura Administra­tion (vide Annexures K to P). The Petitioner made it clear that he was not prepared to go to Calcutta unless advance T. A. was paid to him and the Ad­ministration was pointing out to him that advance cannot be granted to him under the rules. (5) Then, from February, 1956 his salary was stopped evidently because he was not obeying the direction of the Government to appear at Calcutta for medical examination and the Petitioner then began insisting that in addition to the advance T. A. he must also be paid the arrears of salary if he was to proceed to Calcutta. Then the Administra­tion wrote to the District Magistrate on 15-9-56 that the Petitioner was willfully disobeying the Govern­ment order and that he should be warned that if he did not appear before the Board at Calcutta his appeal will automatically stand dismissed. This was communicated to the Petitioner by Annexure R dated 21-9-56 and 30th September, 1956 was fixed as the day for his appearance at Calcutta. This was communicated to the Petitioner by Annexure R dated 21-9-56 and 30th September, 1956 was fixed as the day for his appearance at Calcutta. This period was extended first upto 31-10-56 and sub­sequently to 31-11-56 as a last chance (vide Annexures T and U). (6) The Petitioner again appealed to the Chief Commissioner by the Annexure W asking for ad­vance T. A. and arrears of pay. Ultimately after further correspondence the Petitioner was allowed Rs. 95/- for the costs of the Air journey to and from Calcutta and it was stated that the ticket will be purchased at the time of his boarding the plane. But the Petitioner was not willing to accept this offer and said that he had no money to meet the expenses of halting at Calcutta and for the Medi­cal Board examination etc. and he wanted an extra amount of Rs. 200/- (Annexure Z (2)). But he was intimated in reply that nothing fur­ther can be done unless he complied with the di­rection already given within 10th March, 1957 and that if he did not do so it will be taken that he has refused to appear before the Medical Board and action will be taken to dispose of his appeal ac­cordingly. But the Petitioner did not comply with that direction and so on 6-5-57 the order Annexure 8 was passed stating that the Petitioner was unwill­ing to appear before the Medical Board and hence his case was closed and the appeal filed by him was disallowed. The result of it was that the ori­ginal order Annexure E dated 1-2-54 retrenching him from service and allowing him to go on pen­sion from 15-2-54 was confirmed. (7) After that the Petitioner is said to have preferred a further appeal to the Ministry of Home Affairs on 7-6-1957 which was. not forwarded by the Tripura Administration and a further appeal to the President of India through the Chief Commissioner on 26-10-57 which was also not forwarded and then an appeal direct to the President on 20-11-57 for which he did not receive a reply. Then he came forward with the present Writ on 2-1-1959 after having served a notice on the Tripura Admi­nistration. (8) The Writ is directed against the order dated 1-2-1954 and it was presented in January, 11959 nearly 5 years later. Then he came forward with the present Writ on 2-1-1959 after having served a notice on the Tripura Admi­nistration. (8) The Writ is directed against the order dated 1-2-1954 and it was presented in January, 11959 nearly 5 years later. The Petitioner seeks to avoid the delay of 5 years by saying that during this period he was moving the authority by appeal against the said order. But as far as I understand there is no provision for appeal beyond the Chief Commissioner and that appeal was disposed of in May, 1957 and the Administration had made it clear to him that they will not forward his further appeals to the Union Ministry or to the President. The Writ is thus hopelessly delayed and I could dismiss it on that ground alone. (9) Even if we go into the merits of the ap­plication, I am afraid, the Petitioner has no case. As an employee of the old Tripura State his status on, integration of the Tripura State with the Indian Union is guided by Article VIII (I) of the Tripura Merger Agreement. The Government of India guaranteed thereunder either the continuance in ser­vice of the permanent members of the Public Ser­vices of Tripura on conditions which will be no less advantageous than those on which they were serv­ing before the date on which the administration of Tripura was made over to the Government of India or the payment of reasonable compensation. Thus the option was with the Administration to decide whether the Petitioner should be continued in service or should be retrenched on payment of reasonable compensation. If that option was exercised and the petitioner was retrenched on payment of retrenchment benefits in addition to pen­sion, I fail to see how he can file a Writ against it. (10) It is clear that the cases of individual officers as to whether they were to continue or to be retrenched cannot be decided immediately after the merger as the number of officers must be very large and the Administration has to decide each individual case. Further, rules have got to be framed regarding the absorption of officers and in case they are to be retrenched, regarding the retrenchment benefits which they are to get. They have to be decided in accordance with Article VIII(I) of the Tripura Merger Agreement. Pending these matters the Petitioner was allowed to continue in service. Further, rules have got to be framed regarding the absorption of officers and in case they are to be retrenched, regarding the retrenchment benefits which they are to get. They have to be decided in accordance with Article VIII(I) of the Tripura Merger Agreement. Pending these matters the Petitioner was allowed to continue in service. But such continuance will not give him a better footing and is at best only tentative. (11) On 16-1-53 the Government of India, Ministry of States wrote to the Chief Secretary, Tripura regarding the reorganisation of the District Administration and in paragraph 2 of that letter it was stated that the scales of pay as revised would be given with retrospective effect from 1-4-1950 to such personnel taken over from the former State as may ultimately be retained in service after pro­per screening of the personnel. Thus it appears to have' been decided that there must be screening of the personnel taken over before their absorption into the new service. It was after this that the District Magistrate asked the Director of Health Service to examine the petitioner and report about his physical fitness with particular reference to the suspicion that he was suffering from Leprosy. (12) With regard to the right of tine Admini­stration to insist on such medical examination be­fore absorbing the old Tripura State servants into die new services there can be no question in the light of the letter Annexure Z(3) and in the light of the Article VIII(I) of the Tripura Merger Agree­ment. In appearing before the Director of Health Services and in getting himself examined the Peti­tioner also accepted the position and he did not at that stage contend that he was not liable to be so examined before absorption. Thus the procedure adopted by the Administration cannot be question­ed. (13) What the petitioner however contends is that the opinion of the Director of Health Services that the petitioner was suffering from a contagious form of Leprosy was not a correct opinion and he pointed out that he was medically examined in (1946 (1356 T. E.) when he was a servant of the Tripura State and that then he was declared to be free from any contagious disease. That was the point taken by him in the appeal which he filed against the order of the District Magistrate retrench­ing him from service on the strength of the opinion given by the Director of Health Services. We cannot in this Writ application canvass the question whether the opinion of the Director of Health Services is right or wrong. However, it has to be stated that between 1946 when the then Medi­cal Officer gave the opinion Annexure 3 and 1953 when the Director of Health Services gave the opinion Annexure D there has been a lapse of over 7 years and the state of health of the peti­tioner was certainly liable for change. So the peti­tioner cannot rely on the old certificate Annexure 3 given by the then Medical Officer. He himself accepted this position and requested that expert opinion may be obtained. This was acceded to by the Administration before deciding the appeal which he had filed to the Chief Com­missioner and as pointed out earlier the petitioner was directed on various occasions to appear before the Director, School of Tropical Medicine at Calcutta. But the petitioner would not go unless he was given advance traveling allowance. (14) I can understand such insistence on the part of the petitioner if he had a permanent post in the new Administration or if at least he had a lien or a right to hold the post he was then holding or at least if the rules permitted the payment of ad­vance travelling allowance to him. He has not satisfied me on anyone of these points. His argu­ment was only one of ad misericordiam or one of poverty. Even to this plea, the Administration ac­ceded to some extent and was prepared to meet his Air transport charges to Calcutta and back. But the petitioner then started insisting most unjustifiably on his being paid the arrears of salary. He had already been directed to be retrenched and he would not be entitled to any arrears of salary unless he succeeded in the appeal to the Chief Commissioner. It was in order to deal effectively with that very appeal that the Administration direct­ed the petitioner to appear before the Director, School of Tropical Medicine at Calcutta. He had already been directed to be retrenched and he would not be entitled to any arrears of salary unless he succeeded in the appeal to the Chief Commissioner. It was in order to deal effectively with that very appeal that the Administration direct­ed the petitioner to appear before the Director, School of Tropical Medicine at Calcutta. Thus unless he was examined at Calcutta and an opinion favourable to him was received die ap­peal cannot end in his favour in which case the order of the District Magistrate retrenching him from service would stand and he would not be entitled to the arrears of salary.. Thus the insistence on the payment of arrears of salary was highly im­proper on the part of the petitioner. As a Govern­ment servant he had a duty to obey the directions of the Government and if he did not do so, he has to take the consequences of such disobedience. The petitioner was himself responsible for his appeal to the Chief Commissioner being dismissed. (15) But we are not concerned in this case with the order passed in appeal by the Chief Com­missioner as the petitioner has not sought to have that order set aside in this proceeding. His prayer was only to set aside the order of retrenchment Annexure 1 passed by the District Magistrate on l-2-1954. As far as that order is concerned, he cannot challenge the said order in view of the fact that he had no permanent post in the new Ad­ministration and had not been absorbed therein and had no right to the post or lien on the post which he was holding at the time when the order of re­trenchment was passed. It cannot be treated, there­fore, as either removal or dismissal from the post. It is an order passed strictly in accordance with Article VIII(I) of the Tripura Merger Agreement. As pointed out in the decision Diwan Chand Sahni v. State of Madhya Bharat, (S) AIR 1957 Madh-B 100 in dealing with clause XVI of the Co­venant of the Covenanting States of Madhya Bha­rat which is similar in terms to Article VIII of the Tripura Merger Agreement, there was no legal ob­ligation cast upon the Government to take the peti­tioner into the permanent service of the State, nor was the petitioner legally bound to serve the new State. Article VIII of the Tripura Merger Agree­ment did not create any legal right amongst the Civil servants of the merged State to claim to be in service in the new State. (16) Again, if we treat the retrenchment of the petitioner by Annexure I as a compulsory retire­ment with benefits of pension and retirement be­nefits the disputed order appears to be again an order strictly in accordance with Article VIII of the Merger Agreement. Article VIII provides for pay­ment of reasonable compensation. The order An­nexure I provides not only for pension but also for full retrenchment benefits as per rules. In a similar case in Madhya Bharat "Vijay Shankar Babulalji Saksena v. State of Madhya Bha­rat", AIR 1954 Madh-B 177 in dealing with Arti­cle XVI (I) of the Covenant, the Madhya Bharat High Court held that retirement with all the bene­fits of a temporary servant in the erstwhile State will not amount to removal within the meaning of Article 311 when there is nothing to show that the removal was a measure of punishment. I am in full agreement with the said decision. In the present case, also, the retrenchment was not as a punishment but on the ground of the peti­tioner's health as it would affect, other Govern­ment servants. I may also refer to the decision of the Supreme Court Rajvi Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1958 SC 228 in which it was held that 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. Thus the petitioner had no right to the post after the integration of the Tripura State into the Indian Union. (17) For the petitioner the decision Jagannath Prasad Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1959 Madh-Pra 136 was relied on. In that decision it was stated that there must be some stage at which the right of the succeeding state to accept or not to accept the servants of a former state would come to an end and at which the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution would begin to operate. In that decision it was stated that there must be some stage at which the right of the succeeding state to accept or not to accept the servants of a former state would come to an end and at which the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution would begin to operate. It was pointed out by the petitioner that as he was allowed to continue in service for more than 4 years after the integration, it -must, be held that the stage had been reached when he must be deemed to have been absorbed in the service. But I have pointed out that no orders absorb­ing him into the new service have been passed and he was merely allowed to continue in service until his case was finally decided. Until then he must be deemed to be on sufferance. The decision just cited above will not apply to our present case as in that case an order was passed by the State of Vindhya Pradesh after integration appointing the petitioner in that case into the service of the Vin­dhya Pradesh Government. When once that was done he becomes a servant of the new State with the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution attached to his service. That decision will not therefore apply in our present case. (18) I should think the petitioner is solely res­ponsible for the predicament which he is in on ac­count of the deliberate disobedience on his part of the direction given to him by the Tripura Adminis­tration to appear before the Director, School of Tropical Medicine. This Court cannot interfere with the order Annexure 1 passed by the District Magistrate on 1-2-1954. The petition is dismissed with the costs of the Respondent. Advocate's fee Rs. 100/-. Petition dismissed.