Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)Rajvi Amar Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan on 28 November, 1957
4. Shivdayal, J., differing from Khan, J., took the view that Rajvi Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1958 S.C.R. 1013 had no application to this case. In my view, it does apply because the petitioner can claim to serve only on such terms and conditions as the new State of Madhya Bharat chose to give him. By the final order dated 31 October 1956, he was integrated as head clerk and he is, therefore, disentitled to claim a higher post. But it is claimed that he was previously integrated as office superintendent and was also confirmed on that poet, which could not be taken away from him in disregard of the protection afforded to him by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. To this, there are, as I will show in a moment, three answers.
Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union Of India on 1 November, 1957
24. On behalf of the State reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Rajvi Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan and P.L. Dhingra v. Union of India 1958 I L.L.J. 544. The first case is cited for the proposition that when one State is merged in another, those who elect to serve in the new State and are taken on by it shall serve on such terms and conditions as the new State may choose to impose. I am unable to appreciate what support the learned Government Advocate can derive from this authority on the question under consideration.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The States Reorganisation Act, 1956
1