http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 17  

PETITIONER: AHMED HUSSAIN KHAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/09/1984

BENCH: MADON, D.P. BENCH: MADON, D.P. CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) MISRA RANGNATH

CITATION:  1984 AIR 1855            1985 SCR  (1) 908  1984 SCC  Supl.  467     1984 SCALE  (2)561  CITATOR INFO :  R          1984 SC1910  (1)

ACT:      Hyderabad   Civil    Services   Rules-Rule   299(1)(b)- Interpretation of  Maximum pension  payable to  a government servant is  Rs.  1000  and  not  Rs.  857.15  per  month  in Government of  India Currency. Government Notification dated February 3,1971 amending cl. (b) of sub-rule (1) of rule 299 not valid.      States Reorganization  Act, 1956-Proviso  to sub-s. (7) of s.  115-When applicable Pension is a condition of service and any change made by Government in pension disadvantageous to government  servant  must  comply  with  requirements  of proviso to sub-s. (7) of s. 115.      Words and  Phrases-’Pension’-Pension is  a condition of service.

HEADNOTE:      The appellants in Civil Appeals No. 2627 & 2628 of 1977 joined superior  Civil service of the erstwhile Indian State of Hyderabad in the year 1945 and 1942 respectively. At that time their  conditions  of  service  were  governed  by  the Hyderabad  Civil   Services   Regulations   promulgated   in obedience to  the Nizam’s  Firman.  Regulation  6  of  these Regulations inter  alia provided  that an officer’s claim to pension was regulated by the rules in force at the time when the officer  retired, Regulation  313(b) provided  that  the maximum pension ordinarily admissible would be Osmania Sikka (O.S.) Rs.  1,000 a  month. ’The  erstwhile Indian  Slate of Hyderabad had  its own currency known as The "Osmania Sikka" denominated in  short as  "O.S." and  the phrase " O.S." Rs. 1000 a month" which occurred in clause (h) of Regulation 313 meant Osmania  Sikka Rs.  1000 a  month. The  Government  of India currency  was known as Indian Government currency" and denominated in  short as  "I.G. currency". The standard rate of exchange was 7 O.S. rupees for 6 I.G. rupees.      Under clause (22) of section 2 of the Hyderabad General Clauses Act  (No. III of 1308 F.), as it then stood, ’rupee" meant a rupee in the O.S. Currency.      On the  coming into  force of the Constitution of India on  January  26,  1950,  Hyderabad  became  a  part  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 17  

territory of  India. Consequently the Hyderabad Currency was demonetized with effect from April 1, 1953 and the Hyderabad Currency  Demonetization  (Consequential  and  Miscellaneous Provision )  Act, 1953  (Hyderabad Act  No. I  of 1953)  was enacted. Section  2 of  the Demonetization Act provided that references in  any Hyderabad  law,  regulations  Etc.  which immediately before  the commencement  of this  Act  were  in force in 909 the Hyderabad  State shall  be construed  as  if  references therein to  any amounts in the O.S. Currency were references to the  equivalent amounts in I.G. Currency according to the standard rate of exchange. By the Demonetization Act, clause (22) of  section 2  of the Hyderabad General Clauses Act was substituted by  a new clause which provided that rupee means a rupee  in I.G.  Currency and fractional denominations of a rupee shall be construed accordingly      In 1954, in exercise of the powers under Article 309 of the Constitution  the Rajpramukh  of the  State of Hyderabad promulgated the  Hyderabad Civil  Services Rules.  Rule 4 of these Rules  provides, inter alia, that Government servant s claim to pension would be regulated by the rules in force at the time  when the  Government  servant  retires.  Rule  299 provides for  pension Clause  (b) of  Rule 299 provides that the maximum pension ordinarily admissible will be Rs. 1000 a month. Rule  299 was  later renumbered as sub-rule (1) and a new sub-rule  (2) was  added which  is not  relevant.  By  a notification dated  February 3, 1971, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh amended  clause (b)  of sub-rule  (1) of rule 299 of the Hyderabad  Civil  Services  Rules  and  substituted  Rs. 857.15 for the expression Rs, 1000.      After the  passing of  the States  Reorganization  Act, 1956 the  services of the two appellants were transferred to the State  of Andhra Pradesh under section 115 of the States Reorganization Act. The two appellants retired in April 1972 and  April   1973  respectively.   At  the   time  of  their retirement, the  appellants pension  was fixed at Rs. 683.11 per month  and Rs. 857.15 respectively on the basis that the amount of  maximum pension  admissible under  clause (b)  of Rule 299(1) of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules as amended by notification  dated February  3, 1971 was Rs. 857.15. The appellants thereupon  filed two writ petitions under Article 226 of  the Constitution  in the  High Court challenging the said amendment  made to clause (b) of Rule 299(1) inter alia on the  ground that  under the proviso to sub-section (7) of section 115  of  the  State  Reorganization  Act,  1956  the amendment required  the previous  approval  of  the  Central Government which  had not  been obtained.  A single Judge of the High  Court allowed  both the writ petition and issued a writ of  mandamus in  each of  them directing  the State  of Andhra Pradesh  to fix  the pension  on the  basis that  the maximum pension  admissible under the said rule 299(1)(b) of the Hyderabad  Civil Services  Rules was  Rs. 1000 per month and not  Rs. 857.15  per month.  In the appeals filed by the State a  Division Bench  of  the  High  Court  by  a  common judgment held  that the  amendment was  valid as  the letter dated April  28,  1973  from  the  Joint  Secretary  to  the Government of  India, to  the Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh  was in  the nature  of a  previous  approval given by  the Central  Government within  the meaning of the proviso to  sub-section (7)  of section  115  of  the  State Reorganization Act,  1956, to  the impugned amendment to the clause (b)  of Rule  299(1) of  the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules. Hence these appeals.      The Appellants  contended that  the letter  dated April

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 17  

28, 1973,  from the  Joint Secretary  to the  Government  of India, did  not amount  to  the  previous  approval  of  the Central Government  to  the  amendment  made  by  the  State Government to  clause (b)  of Rule  299(1) and the amendment was, therefore, invalid and inoperative. 910      The  Respondent  contended  that  irrespective  of  the amendment  made  in  clauses  (b)  of  Rule  299(1)  by  The notification dated  February 3,  1971, the  maximum  pension actually admissible under the clause (b) was only Rs. 857.15 in as  much as  the sum  of Rs. 1000 mentioned in the clause (b) prior to its amendment was not Rs. 1000 in Government of India Currency but in the former Hyderabad Currency, namely, Osmania Sikka, and that the Letters "O.S." which denominated Osmania Sikka  in short  were omitted  from  the  said  Rule 299(1)(b) by an inadvertent printing error.      Allowing the appeals, ^      HELD: 1. The Appellants are entitled to receive pension on the  basis that  the  maximum  pension  admissible  under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 99 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules  is Rs. 1000 per month in Government of India Currency and not Rs. 857.15 per month in that Currency. [928 F]      2.1 The  first question  is whether the omission of the description "O.S."  before Rs. 1000 a month in clause (b) of Rule 299 was the result of an in advertent printing error as contended by  the Respondent or was a departure deliberately made from  what was provided in clause (b) of regulation 313 in order to provide higher pension to Government servants in superior service. In this connection it is pertinent to note that the Rules were made after the erstwhile Indian State of Hyderabad had  become a  part of  the territory of India and after the  Demonetization Act  had been enacted and had come into force  and clause  (2) of  section 2  of the  Hyderabad General  Clauses   Act  (which  defined  the  term  rupee  ) substituted  by   a  new  clause  by  that  Act.  After  the Demonetization Act  there could be no question of any Act or Rules providing  for any  payment in Osmania Sikka. The word rupees in  clause (b) or Rule 299 can, therefore, only refer to rupees  in I.G.  Currency  and  not  to  rupees  in  O.S. Currency. It  is pertinent  to point out that the Rules were not a  mere reproduction of the Regulations. The arrangement of the  Rules is  in several  respects  different  from  the arrangement of the Regulations. There is no where any amount mentioned  in  the  Rules  of  O.S.  Currency  nor  are  the different  amounts   mentioned  in   the  Rules   the  exact equivalent in  I.G. Currency of the amounts in O.S. Currency mentioned in  the Regulations.  It is also significant  that Regulation 308  provided that a pension was ordinarily fixed in the  current coin  of the  Hyderabad State even though it might have  to be  raid  to  persons  residing  outside  the Hyderabad State, and that in special cases it might be fixed in Government  of India  Currency subject  to the  condition that the maximum of O.S. Rs 1000 per mensem fixed in clauses (b)  of   Regulation  313   was  not  exceed  ed  under  any circumstances. The  note to  Regulation 308  stated  that  a pension transferred  to India  might be  converted from  the current  coin  of  the  Hyderabad  State  Indian  Government Currency  under   the  principle   laid  down  in  the  said Regulation.  In   the   Rules,   there   is   no   provision corresponding to  Regulation 308.  If  there  is  any  doubt (assuming that there can be any), it is most easily resolved by referring  to the  Preface to  the Eight  Edition of  the Hyderabad Civil  Services Rules  Manual, which for the first

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 17  

time published  the Rules  in a book form. In paragraph 3 of the said  Preface,  the  Secretary  to  Government,  Finance Department, Hyderabad, has expressly stated: The figures for amounts of  rupees and  annas mentioned in the rules are all in Indian  Government Currency.  There can  thus be no scope for any argument that the sum or 911 Rs. 1000  mentioned as  being admissible for maximum pension in clause  (b) of Rule 299 was Rs. 1000 in Indian Government Currency and not in Osmania Sikka. [921 D-H; 922 A-D]      2.2 Moreover,  the question  whether in  clause (b)  of Rule 299(1)  the sum  of Rs. 1000 is mentioned in Government of India  Currency or  in O.S.  Currency  has  been  finally decided and  it is  not open  to the Respondent to reagitate this question  because in  Daulat Rai  & Ors.  v.  State  of Andhra Pradesh  Writ Petition  No. 3318  of 1969, in which a single Judge  of Andhra  High Court  held that  there was no error in  mentioning Rs.  1000 in clause (b) of Rule 299(1). This was  confirmed in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Daulat Rai and Ors  Letters Patent Writ Appeal No. 568 of 1970, decided on  24.9.1970.  Against  This  decision  the  Special  Leave Petition filed  in the  Supreme Court  was  dismissed.  This point was also not taken by the Respondent in the High Court and for  the reason also it is not open to the Respondent to urge it before this Court. [923 B-E] C      3. The second question is of the validity of Government Notification dated  February 3, 1971, amending Clause (b) of sub-rule (1)  of Rule 299. Pension is a condition of service as already  held by this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shardul Singh. The proviso to sub section (7) of section 115 of  the   States  Reorganization   Act  provides   that  the conditions of  service of  a government servant shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the  Central Government.  The Respondents  contention  is that letter  dated April  28, 1973  from the  Government  of India  amounts   to  previous   approval  of   the   Central Government. By letter dated March 13, 1973 the Government of India was requested to accord approval to the said amendment if it  considered it necessary so to do. But its reply dated April 12, 1973, the Government of India categorically stated that the  amendment did not require its prior approval under section 115 and, therefore, did not give any approval to the said amendment,  To equate the not giving of approval with a prior approval satisfying the requirements of the proviso to sub-section (7)  of section  115  appears  to  US  to  be  a contradiction in  terms as also to say that a letter written on April 28, 1973 was a prior approval given to an amendment which was  made more  than two years ago earlier on February 3, 1971.  The statement  made in  the letter dated March 13, 1973, that  by the  said amendment the conditions of service were not  being varied  was incorrect  because by  the  said amendment the  maximum pension of Rs. 1000 per month in I.G. Currency  was  being  reduced  to  the  equivalent  in  that Currency of  O.S. Rs.  1000 per month, namely, to Rs. 857.15 per month,  and that  too with retrospective effect from the date of  the coming  into force of Rules, namely, October 1, 1954. For  such an  amendment the  previous approval  of the Central Government  was required  by  the  proviso  to  sub- section (7)  of section 115. Such approval was not given and the amendment  made by the said Notification was, therefore, invalid and  inoperative so  far  as  it  concerned  persons referred to in sub-section (1) and (2) of section 115 of the States Reorganization Act. [923 F; 925 E; 927 C-G]      State of  Madhya Pradesh  and Others  v. Shardul  Singh [1070] 3 S.C.R. 302 at p. 306, referred to.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 17  

    4,  There   is  no  substance  in  tho  Respondent’s  s contention that the appel- 912 lants had waived their right to receive pension on the basis that the maximum pension admissible under clause (b) of Rule 299(1)  ii  Rs.  1000  and  were  therefore,  estopped  from claiming pension  on that  basis. This point was never taken in the  High Court.  Further, apart from the fact that there cannot be any waiver of the right to receive Pension payable under the  Rules made  in that  behalf there  is no  factual basis whatever for this contention. [928 A-Bl

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION Civil  Appeal Nos. 2627 & 2628 of 1977      Appeals by  Special leave  from the  Judgment and order dated the  2nd February,  1976 of  the Andhra  Pradesh  High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 835 & 920 of 1974.      S. Markandeya for the Appellant.      U.R. Lalit and Narsimhulu for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      MADON, J. These two Appeals by Special Leave granted by this Court  raise a  common question  of law as regarded the maximum amount  of pension  for superior  service admissible under clause  (b)  of  sub-rule  (1)  of  Rule  299  of  the Hyderabad Civil  Services Rules.  According to the Appellant in each  of these  two Appeals, such amount is Rs. 1,000 per month while  according to  the State  of Andhra Pradesh, the Respondent in  both these  Appeals, it  is  Rs.  857.15  per month.      Before considering which of these two rival contentions is correct,  it would  be contentions  to relate  first  the relevant facts which have given rise to this controversy.      Prior to  the coming  into force of the Constitution of India on  January 26,  1950, Hyderabad  was an  Indian State within the meaning of that term as defined in section 311(1) of the  Government of  India Act, 1935, and its Ruler within the meaning  of that  term as  defined in  the said  section 311(1) was the Nizam. The Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2627 of 1977,  Ahmed Hussain  Khan, joined  the  service  of  the Public Work  Department of  the erstwhile  Indian  State  of Hyderabad in  the year 1945 and retired on April 5, 1972, as Chief  Engineer,  Electricity  (operation),  Andhra  Pradesh State Electricity  Board. At  the time  of his retirement he was drawing a salary of Rs. 1,980 per month. By a Government Order, namely, G.O. MS 913 No. 664,  Public Works  (E) Department, dated June 22, 1973, this  Appellant’s   pension  after   deducting  the  pension equivalent of death-cum-retirement gratuity was fixed at Rs. 801.96 per  month on  the basis  that the  maximum amount of pension admissible  under Rule  299(1)(b) of  the  Hyderabad Civil Services  Rules was  Rs. 1,000  per month.  By another Government order, namely, G.O. MS No. 769, Public Works (Pen I) Department,  dated July  2, 1913,  the amount  of pension payable to  this Appellant was fixed at Rs. 683.11 per month after  deducting   the  pension   equivalent  of  death-cum- retirement gratuity  on the  basis that  by  a  Notification dated February 3, 1971, amending the said clause (b) of Rule 299(1), the  amount of  maximum pension admissible under the said clause was restricted to Rs. 877.15. Ahmed Hussain Khan thereupon filed  a writ  petition under  Article 226  of the Constitution of  India in  the High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 17  

being Writ  Petition No.  7113 of 1973, challenging the said amendment made  to clause  (b) of  Rule 299(1) inter alia on the ground  that under  the proviso  to sub-section  (7)  of section 115 of the States Reorganization Act, 1956, the said amendment required  the previous  approval  of  the  Central Government which had not been obtained. D      The Appellant  in Civil  Appeal No.  2628 of  1977,  S. Gopalan, joined  the service  of the Public Works Department of the  erstwhile Indian State of Hyderabad in the year 1942 and retired  on April,  14, 1973,  as Chief  Engineer, Major Irrigation and  General Public  Works Department, Government of Andhra  Pradesh. At  the time  of his  retirement he  was drawing a  salary of  Rs. 2,180  per month.  By a Government order, namely, G.O. MS No. 462, P.W., (L1) Department, dated May 8,  1973, his  pension was fixed at Rs. 857.15 per month pursuant to  the said  amended clause (b) of Rule 299(1). He thereupon filed  a writ  petition under  Article 226  of the Constitution of  India in  the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, being Writ Petition No. 7114 of 1973, on the same grounds as the Appellant Ahmed Hussain Khan      Both these  writ  petitions  were  heard  together  and disposed of  by a  common judgment by a learned Single Judge of the  said High  Court. The aforesaid contention raised in the said  writ petition found favour with the learned Single Judge and he allowed both the said writ petitions and issued a writ  of mandamus  m each  of them  directing the State of Andhra Pradesh  to fix  the pension payable to the Appellant in each  of these  two  Appeals  from  The  date  he  became eligible for  pension, that  is, from  the date  on which he retired from  Government service,  on  the  basis  that  the maximum pension admissible under the 914 said Rule  299(1)(b) of  the Hyderabad  Civil Services Rules was Rs.  1,000 per  month and  not Rs. 857.15 per month. The learned Single  Judge also  directed  the  State  of  Andhra Pradesh to  pay the  costs of both these writ petitions. The appeals filed  by the  State of  Andhra Pradesh  against the said judgment  and orders of the learned Single Judge, being Writ Appeals Nos. 835 of 1974 and 920 of 1974, were allowed, with no order as to costs, by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High  Court by  a common  judgment  holding  that  a letter No. S/8/73-SR(S) dated April 28, 1973, from the Joint Secretary to  the Government  of India, Cabinet Secretariat, Department of  Personnel and  A.R., to  the Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Finance Department, was in the nature  of   a  previous   approval  given  by  the  Central Government within  the meaning of the proviso to sub-section (7) of  section 115  of the States Reorganization Act, 1956, to the  impugned amendment  to clause  (b) of Rule 299(1) of the Hyderabad  Civil Services  Rules. The correctness of the judgment and  orders of  the Division  Bench of  the  Andhra Pradesh High  Court are  assailed before  us  in  these  two Appeals.      At the  hearing of  these two  Appeals, Mr. Markandeya, learned Counsel  for the  Appellant in  each  of  these  two Appeals, submitted  that the  said letter  dated  April  28, 1973, from  the Joint  Secretary to the Government of India, did not  amount to  the previous  approval  of  the  Central Government to  the amendment made by the State Government to clause (b)  of Rule  299(1)  and  the  said  amendment  was, therefore, invalid  and. inoperative.  He further  submitted that the  right to  receive pension  was property under sub- clause (f)  of clause  (1) of  Article 19  and Clause (1) of Article 31  of the  Constitution  of  India  and  the  State Government could  not withhold it by a mere executive order.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 17  

So far  as Appellant, Ahmed Hussain Khan, was concerned, Mr. Markandeya further submitted that his pension having already been fixed  under the  said Rule 299(1)(b) at Rs. 801.96 per month, on  the basis  that the  maximum  pension  admissible under the  said Rule  was Rs.  1,000 per month, it could not subsequently be unilaterally reduced to Rs. 683.11 per month on the  basis that  the maximum pension admissible under the said  Rule  299(1)(b)  was  Rs.  857.15  per  month  as  was purported to be done by the said Government order dated July 2, 1973, without according the said Appellant an opportunity of showing cause against the same.      Mr, Lalit,  appearing on  behalf of  the Respondent-the State  of   Andhra  Pradesh,   raised  the   following  four contentions: 915           (1) Irrespective of the said amendment made in the      said clause (b) of Rule 299(1) by the said Notification      dated February  3, 1971,  the maximum  pension actually      admissible under  the said  clause  (b)  was  only  Rs.      857.15 inasmuch  as the  sum of  Rs. 1,000 mentioned in      the said  clause (b) prior to its amendment was not Rs.      1,000 in Government of India currency but in the former      Hyderabad currency, namely, Osmania Sikka, and that the      letters "O.S." which denominated Osmania Sikka in short      were  omitted  from  the  said  Rule  299(1)(b)  by  an      inadvertent printing error.           (2) In  any event,  under the  Hyderabad  Currency      Demonetization   (Consequential    and    Miscellaneous      Provisions) Act, 1953, the said sum of Rs. 1,000 was to      be construed as its equivalent amount in the Government      of India  currency and,  therefore,  according  to  the      standard rate  of exchange  the equivalent of Rs. 1,000      in Osmania  Sikka was Rs. 857.15 in Government of India      currency.           (3) The said letter dated April 21, 1973, from the      Joint Secretary  to the  Government  of  India  to  the      Secretary to  the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Finance      Department,  constituted  the  prior  approval  of  the      Central Government within the meaning of the proviso to      sub-sec(ion  (7)   of  section   115  of   the   States      Reorganization Act,  1956, to the amendment made in the      said clause (b) of Rule 299(1).           (4) The Appellant in each of these two Appeals had      received without  any protest pension on the basis that      the maximum  pension admissible  under  the  said  Rule      299(1)(b) was  Rs. 857.15  per month  and  had  thereby      waived his right to claim pension on the basis that the      maximum pension  admissible under the said Rule was Rs.      1,000 per  month and  he was,  therefore, estopped from      raising this contention.      In Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and others this Court held  that the payment of pension does not depend upon the discretion  of the  State but  is governed  by the rules made in  that behalf  and a Government servant coming within such rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not 916 depend upon an order being passed by the authorities to that effect though  for the  purpose of  quantifying  the  amount having regard  to the  period of  service and  other  allied matters, it  may be necessary for the authorities to pass an order to that effect, but the right to receive pension flows to an officer not because of the said order but by virtue of the rules. It was also held in that case that pension is not a bounty  payable at  the sweet  will and  pleasure  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 17  

Government but  is a  right vesting  in a Government servant and was  property under  clause (1)  of Article  31  of  the Constitution of India and the State had no power to withhold the same  by a  mere executive order and that similarly this right was  also property  under sub-clause (f) of clause (1) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India and was not saved by clause (5) of that Article. It was further held that this right of the Government servant to receive pension cannot be curtailed or taken away by the State by an executive order.      It is, therefore, necessary for us to see the statutory provisions governing  the payment  of pension  to Government servants who  had joined the service of the erstwhile Indian State of  Hyderabad and had continued in service and retired after the Constitution of India came into force. At the time when the  Appellant in  each of  these  two  Appeals  joined service on  the terms  and  conditions  of  the  service  of Government  servants   in  the  erstwhile  Indian  State  of Hyderabad were  governed  by  the  Hyderabad  Civil  Service Regulations, herein  after for  the sake of brevity referred to as "the Regulations".      The Regulations  were promulgated  in obedience  to the Nizam’s Firman  dated 25th  Ramzan, 1337 H. corresponding to 18th Amardad,  1328 F.  They were amended from time to time. Regulation 1  of the Regulations stated that the Regulations were intended to define the conditions under which salaries, leave, pension  and other  allowances were earned by service in the  Civil Departments  and the manner in which they were calculated. Regulation 6 provided as follows:           "6. An  officer’s claim  to pay  and allowances is      regulated by  the rules in force at the time in respect      of which the pay and allowances are earned; to leave by      the rules in force at the time the leave is applied for      and granted and to pension by the rules in force at the      time when the officer retires."                                          (Emphasis supplied) 917      Civil  Service   in  the   erstwhile  Indian  State  of Hyderabad was  of two  kinds, namely,  Superior service  and Inferior service.  Clause (a) of Regulation 37 provided that service in  all appointments the pay of which did not exceed Rs. 40  per mensem  was inferior  service and That all other service was Superior Service. The Appellant in each of these two  Appeals  was,  therefore,  a  member  of  the  Superior Service. Regulation  313 provided for the amount of pensions and  gratuities   for  superior   service.  Clause   (a)  of Regulation 313  dealt with a qualifying service of less than ten years.  Clause  (b)  of  Regulation  313  dealt  with  a qualifying service  of ten  years or  more. The Appellant in each of these two Appeals had put in a qualifying service of more than  ten years  and the amount of his pension, had the Regulations continued  in force until he retired, would have been governed  by clause (b) of Regulation 313. The relevant provisions of Regulation 313 were as follows:           "The  amount   of  pensions   and  gratuities  for      superior service is regulated as follows:      X                  X                   X           "(b) After  a qualifying  service of  10 years  or      more, the  amount of  the pension  will  be  calculated      according to  the following  rule; the  average  salary      should  be  multiplied  by  the  period  of  qualifying      service, and the product divided by 60; the result will      be  the  amount  of  pension  admissible.  The  maximum      pension ordinarily  admissible will be O.S. Rs. 1,000 a      month. In applying the above rule qualifying service of      25 years  or above, whatever its length may be, will be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 17  

    treated as 30 years service."      It may  be mentioned that the erstwhile Indian State of Hyderabad had  its own currency known as the "Osmania Sikka" denominated in  short as  "O.S." and  the phrase  "O.S.  Rs. 1,000 a  month’’ which  occurred in clause (b) of Regulation 313 meant Osmania Sikka Rs. 1,000 a month. The Government of India currency was known as "Indian Government currency" and denominated in  short as  "I.G. currency". The standard rate of exchange was 7 O.S. rupees for 6 I.G. rupees.      Under clause (22) of section 2 of the Hyderabad General Clauses Act  (No. III of 1308 F.), as it then stood, "rupee" meant a rupee in the O.S. currency. 918      After India  became independent, a Standstill Agreement was entered  into in  November 1947  by the  Nizam with  the Dominion  of   India,  ensuring  virtual  accession  of  the erstwhile Indian State of Hyderabad to the Dominion of India in respect  of defence, external affairs and communications. By a  Firman dated November 23, 1949, the Nizam declared and directed that  the  Constitution  of  India  shortly  to  be adopted by  the Constituent  Assembly of India should be the Constitution for  the erstwhile Indian State of Hyderabad as for the  other parts of India, and would be enforced as such and that  the provisions of the Constitution of India would, as from the date of its commencement, supersede and abrogate all other  constitutional provisions  inconsistent therewith which were  then in  force in  the erstwhile Indian State of Hyderabad. By  the said  Firman, the  Nizam further declared that the  said decision  taken by  him would  be subject  to ratification by  the people  of  the  State  whose  will  as expressed through  the Constituent  Assembly of  that  State would finally  determine  the  nature  of  the  relationship between the  erstwhile Indian  State of  Hyderabad  and  the Union of  India as  also  the  Constitution  of  that  State itself. (see  White Paper on Indian States 1950, pp. 113 and 369-70).  The  Constituent  Assembly  of  Hyderabad  set  up shortly thereafter ratified the decision taken by the Nizam. On the  coming into  force of  the Constitution  of India on January 26,  1950, Hyderabad  became a part of the territory of India as a Part B State.      Consequent  upon   the  above   constitutional  change, Hyderabad currency was demonetized with effect from April 1, 1953,   and    the   Hyderabad    Currency    Demonetization (Consequential  and   Miscellaneous  Provisions)   Act  1953 (Hyderabad Act  No. 1  of 1953) (herein after referred to as "the Demonetization  Act"), enacted.  The Demonetization Act came into force with effect from April 1, 1953. Section 2 of the Demonetization Act provided as follows .           "2. Provisions  consequential on demonetization of      Hyderabad O.S. Currency:           Subject to  the provisions  of the  Act references      express or  implied in  any Hyderabad  law, Regulation,      notification, order,  bye-law, contract  and  agreement      (oral or  written) bond  and  other  instruments  which      immediately before the commencement of this Act were in      force in  the Hyderabad State shall be cons trued as if      references therein to any amounts in O.S. Currency were      references to  the equivalent  amounts in I.G. currency      according to  the standard  rate of  exchange  and  all      rights and 919      liabilities express  or implied  in  O.S.  Currency  in      force  before  such  commencement  shall  be  construed      accordingly:           Provided  that   nothing  in  this  section  shall

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 17  

    preclude a person from paying his dues in equivalent o.      s. Currency  to the  extent and  for the  purposes  for      which  the  same  continues  as  legal  tender  in  the      Hyderabad State  after the  thirty-first day  of  March      1953.           Illustration-References to  O.S. Rs.  7 in any law      or other  matters mentioned  in this  section shall  be      construed as  if such references to (sic) Rs. 6 in I.G.      Currency according to the standard rate of exchange."      By the  Demonetization Act,  the said  clause  (22)  of section  2   of  the   Hyderabad  General  Clauses  Act  was substituted by a new clause which provided as follows:           "(22) ’rupee’  means a  rupee in I.G. Currency and      fractional denominations  of a rupee shall be construed      accordingly."      The definitions contained in section 2 of the Hyderabad General Clauses  Act apply  for the  interpretation  of  the terms defined  thereby when occurring in any "Hyderabad law" which expression  includes Regulations made by the Nizam and would thus include the Hyderabad Civil Service Regulations.      In view  of the  provisions of  the Demonetization Act, the  maximum   pension  admissible   under  clause   (b)  of Regulation 313  would be  Rs. 857.15 being the equivalent in I.G. Currency  of O.S.  Rs. 1,000.  Had  the  matter  rested there, neither of the Appellants would have any case because under  Regulation   6  reproduced   earlier,  a   Government servant’s claim  to pension was to be regulated by the rules in force  at the  time the  officer retired  and the pension that each  of them would then have got would be on the basis that the  maximum pension  admissible under  clause  (b)  of Regulation 313  was O.S.  Rs. 1,000  a month,  that is,  Rs. 857.15 a  month in  I.G. currency. The Regulations, however, did not  continue in  existence much  longer and were not in force when  the Appellant  in  each  of  these  two  Appeals retired, for  they were  replaced in  1954 by  the Hyderabad Civil Services  Rules which  were made  by the Rajpramukh of the State of Hyderabad in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The proviso to  Article 309 confers upon the Governor of a State and, prior to its amendment by 920 the Constitution  (Seventh Amendment)  Act, 1956,  conferred upon the  Rajpramukh of  a State,  or such  person as he may direct in  the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, the power to make rules regulating the recruitment  and the  conditions of  service of  persons appointed, to  such services  and posts  until provision  in that behalf  is made  by or  under an Act of the appropriate Legislature under  the said  Article 309,  and any  rules so made are  to have  effect subject  to the  provisions of any such Act.      The  Hyderabad   Civil  Services   Rules   (hereinafter referred to  as "the  Rules") inter alia provide for general conditions   of   service,   pay,   travelling   allowances, dismissal, removal,  suspension and compulsory retirement of civil servants,  and their  pension, leave,  etc. The  Rules came into  force on  October 1, 1954. Rule 4 of the Rules is in pari materia with Regulation 6 of the Regulations. Rule 4 provides as follows:           "4.  A   Government  Servants  claim  to  pay  and      allowances is  regulated by  the rules  in force at the      time in  respect of  which the  pay and  allowances are      earned; to  leave by the rules in force at the time the      leave is applied for and granted; and to pension by the      rule in  force at  the time when the Government servant

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 17  

    retires  or   is  discharged   from  the   service   of      Government."                                          (Emphasis supplied) The Rules preserved the distinction between Inferior Service and Superior Service. Under clause (26) of Rule 7, ’Inferior or Class  IV service’  is defined as meaning "service in all appointments, the  pay of  which does  not exceed Rs. 40 per mensem". Under  clause (48) of Rule 7, ’Superior service’ is defined as  meaning  "any  kind  of  service  which  is  not inferior vide  Rule 7(26)".  Rule 299  of the Rules Provides for the  pension and  gratuity for  superior service. Clause (a) or  Rule 299  deals with  a case  where  the  qualifying service is less than ten years. Clause (b) deals with a case where the  qualifying service  is of  ten years or more. The relevant provisions of Rule 299 are as follows:           "299.  The   pension  and  gratuity  for  superior      service is regulated as follows:      X              X               X 921           (b) After  qualifying service of 10 years or more,      the amount  of the pension will be calculated according      to the  following rule;  the average  salary should  be      multiplied by the period of qualifying service, and the      product divided by 60; the result will be the amount of      pension  admissible.  The  maximum  pension  ordinarily      admissible will  be Rs.  1,000 a month. In applying the      above rule  qualifying service  of 25  years or  above,      whatever its length may be, will be treated as 30 years      service." It will  be noticed  that clause  (b) of Rule 299 is in pari materia  with   clause  (b)  of  Regulation  313  with  this difference that while under clause (b) of Regulation 313 the maximum pension  ordinarily admissible  has to  be "O.S. Rs. 1000 a  month", under  clause (b)  of Rule  299 the  maximum pension ordinarily admissible is to be "Rs. 1,000 a month".      The first  question which  falls for  determination  is whether the  omission of  the description "O.S." before "Rs. 1,000 a  month" in  clause (b) of Rule 299 was the result of an inadvertent printing error as contended by the Respondent or was  a departure deliberately made from what was provided in clause  (b) of  Regulation 313 in order to provide higher pension to  Government servants in superior service. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that the Rules were made after the  erstwhile Indian  State of Hyderabad had become a part of  the territory of India and after the Demonetization Act had been enacted and had come into force and clause (22) of section  2 of  the Hyderabad  General Clauses  Act (which defined the  term ’rupee’)  substituted by  a new  clause by that  Act.  After  the  Demonetization  there  could  be  no question of  any Act  or Rules  providing for any Payment of Osmania Sikka.  The word  "rupees" in clause (b) of Rule 299 can, therefore,  only refer  to rupees  in I.G. Currency and not to  rupees in  O.S. Currency.  It is  also pertinent  to point out  that the Rule were not a mere reproduction of the Regulations. The  arrangement of  the Rules  is  in  several respects different  from the arrangement of the Regulations. There is  nowhere any  amount mentioned in the Rules in O.S. Currency nor  are the  different amounts  mentioned  in  the Rules the  exact equivalent  in I.G. Currency of the amounts in O.S. Currency mentioned in the Regulations. For instance, the  rates   of  mileage  allowance  for  journeys  by  road mentioned in  Rule 99 are not equivalent in I.G. Currency of the  rates   mentioned  in   Regulation  455.   It  is  also significant that  Regulation 308 provided that a pension was ordinarily fixed  in the current coin of the Hyderabad State

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 17  

even though  it might  have to  be paid  to persons residing outside the 922 Hyderabad State, and that in special cases it might be fixed in Government  of India  Currency subject  to the  condition that the  maximum of  O.S. Rs.  1,000 per  mensem  fixed  in clause (b)  of Regulation  313 was  not exceeded  under  any circumstances. The  not to  Regulation  308  stated  that  a pension transferred  to India  might be  converted from  the current coin  of the  Hyderabad State  to Indian  Government currency  under   the  principle   laid  down  in  the  said Regulation. In  the Rules,  we do  not  find  any  provision corresponding to  Regulation 308.  If  there  is  any  doubt (assuming that there can be any), it is most easily resolved by referring  to the  Preface to  the Eighth  Edition of the Hyderabad Civil  Services Rules  Manual, which for the first time published  the Rules  in a book form. In paragraph 3 of the said  Preface,  the  Secretary  to  Government,  Finance Department, Hyderabad,  has expressly  stated: "The  figures for amounts  of rupees  and annas mentioned in the rules are all in  Indian Government  Currency". There  can thus  be no scope for  any argument  that the sum of Rs. 1,000 mentioned as being  admissible for  maximum pension  in clause  (b) of Rule 299 was Rs. 1,000 in Indian Government Currency and not in Osmania Sikka.      We also  find that  it is not open to the Respondent to raise this contention. The State of Hyderabad ceased to be a separate entity  from November  1, 1956,  on the coming into force of the States Reorganization Act, 1956 (Act No. XXXVII of  1956).   Under  the   States  Reorganization   Act,  the territories of  the State  of Hyderabad were added partly to the State  of Andhra,  partly to  the State  of Mysore  (now Karnataka)  and   partly  to   the  State   of  Bombay  (now Maharashtra) and  ceased  to  form  part  of  the  State  of Hyderabad. By section 3(1) of the States Reorganization Act, the name  of the State of Andhra was changed to the State of Andhra Pradesh.  Consequent upon  this reorganization by the Andhra Pradesh  Adaptation order, 1957, the words ’Hyderabad State’ occurring in section 2 of the Demonetization Act were substituted by  the words  "Hyderabad Area  of the  State of Andhra Pradesh"  and by  the Andhra  Pradesh Act IX of 1961, the words  "Hyderabad Area  of the  State of Andhra Pradesh" were substituted  by the  words "Telangana Area of the State of Andhara  Pradesh". Similar  amendments were  made in  the Hyderabad General Clauses Act and the said Act is now called the Andhra  Pradesh (Telangana  Area) General  Clauses  Act, 1308 F.  Almost fifteen  years after  the  Rules  came  into force,   by    a   memorandum,    being    Memorandum    No. 27439/500/Pen.I/69  dated  April  28,  1969,  the  Assistant Secretary to  the  Government  of  Andhra  Pradesh,  Finance Department, issued an erratum to the said clause 923 (b) of  Rule 299  purporting to  correct the  amount of  Rs. 1,000 mentioned  therein to  O.S. Rs.  1,000. Three  retired Government servants  thereupon filed  a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh  High Court  being Writ  Petition No. 3318 of 1969 Daulat  Rai and  others v.  State of  Andhra Pradesh. A learned Single Judge of the said High Court allowed the said writ petition, holding that there was no error in mentioning Rs. 1,000 and that what the said erratum purported to do was to  amend  clause  (b)  of  Rule  299  and  that  the  Rules promulgated by  the Rajpramukh  under the proviso so Article 309 of  the Constitution  of  India  cannot  be  amended  or altered merely  by issuing  an erratum  and  that  the  said Assistant Secretary  to the Government of Andhra Pradesh was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 17  

not entitled  to amend  any such rule unless the sanction of the Governor  of Andhra  Pradesh had  been obtained thereto. The said  writ petition  was thereupon  allowed.  A  Letters Patent Appeal  filed against  the said  judgment, being Writ Appeal No. 568 of 1970 State of Andhra Pradesh v. Daulat Rai and others,  was dismissed  on  September  24,  1970,  by  a Division Bench of the said High Court which also rejected an application for  certificate to  appeal to  this Court and a petition for  special  leave  to  appeal  against  the  said judgment was  dismissed by  this Court. The question whether in clause  (b) of Rule 299 the sum of Rs. 1,000 is mentioned in Government of India Currency or in O.S. Currency has thus been finally decided and it is not open to the Respondent to reagitate this  question. This  point was  also not taken by the Respondent in the High Court and for this reason also it is not open to the Respondent to urge it before us.      We  not  address  ourselves  to  the  question  of  the validity of  the said Government Notification dated February 3, 1971,  amending clause  (b) of  sub-rule (1) of Rule 299. Before setting out the text of the said Notification, we may mention that  it appears  that after  the  judgment  of  the Division Bench  in Daulat Rai’s case Rule 299 was renumbered as sub-rule  (1) and  a new sub-rule (2) was added, sub-rule (2) is  not relevant  for our purpose. The said Notification was as follows:           In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso      under  article   309  read  with  article  313  of  the      Constitution of  India and of all other powers hereunto      enabling, the  Governor of  Andhra Pradesh hereby makes      the following  amendment to the Hyderabad Civil Service      Rules:- 924           The amendment  hereby made shall be deemed to have      come into force on the Ist October, 1954.                          AMENDMENT           In clause  (b) of  sub-rule (1) of rule 299 of the      said Rules  for the  expression  "1,000  a  month"  the      expression "Rs. 857.15 a month" shall be substituted. (BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH)                                              P. R. KALE,                                Joint Secretary to Government      In order  to  appreciate  the  challenge  to  the  said Notification, it  is necessary  to  reproduce  the  relevant provisions of  section l  l S  of the  States Reorganization Act, 1956,  namely,  sub-sections  (2),  (3),  (4)  and  (7) thereof: These sub-sections are as follows:           "(2)  Every  person  who  immediately  before  the      appointed day is serving in connection with the affairs      of an  existing State  part  of  whose  territories  is      transferred to  another State by the provisions of Part      II shall  as from  that day,  provisionally continue to      serve in  connection with  the affairs of the principal      successor State  to that  existing State,  unless he is      required by  general or  special order  of the  Central      Government to  serve provisionally  in connection  with      the affairs of any other successor State.           "(3) As  soon as  may be  after the appointed day,      the Central  Government shall  by  general  or  special      order, deter  mine the  successor State  to which every      person referred  to in sub-section (2) shall be finally      allotted for  service and  the date  with  effect  from      which such  allotment shall take effect or be deemed to      have taken effect.           "(4) Every  person who  is finally  allotted under      the provisions of sub-section (3) to a successor State,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 17  

    shall if  he is  not already  serving therein  be  made      available for serving in that successor State from such      date as  may be  agreed upon  between  the  Governments      concerned, and  in default  of such agreement as may be      determined by the Central Government. 925           "(7) Nothing  in this  section shall  be deemed to      effect after  the appointed  day the  operation of  the      provisions of Chapter I of Part XIV of the Constitution      in relation  to the  determination of the conditions of      service of  persons  serving  in  connection  with  the      affairs of the Union or any State;           Provided that the conditions of service applicable      immediately before the appointed day to the case of any      person referred  to in  sub-section (1)  or sub-section      (2) shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with      the previous approval of the Central Government.      Under  clause   (a)  of   section  2   of  the   States Reorganization Act,  1956, ’principal  successor  State’  in relation to the State of Hyderabad means the State of Andhra Pradesh. Chapter  I of part XIV of the Constitution of India deals with  services under  the Union  and  the  States  and consists of Articles 308 to 313.      What is  pertinent for  our purpose  is that  under the proviso to  sub-section (7)  of section  115 of  the  States Reorganization Act,  the conditions  of  service  applicable immediately before  the appointed  day, namely,  November 1, 1956, in  the case  of any  person referred to inter aila in sub-section (2)  of section  115 cannot  be  varied  to  his disadvantage  except  with  the  previous  approval  of  the Central Government.  Pension is  a condition  of service  as held by  this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Shardul Singh and, therefore, if any rules are to be made by the Governor of a State varying the amount of pension to the disadvantage of  those who  were in service on the appointed day, such  rules would  not be  valid without  the  previous approval of  the Central  Government. The  amendment made by the said  Notification reduced the amount of pension payable to Government  servants who  were  in  the  service  of  the erstwhile State  of Hyderabad  and whose  services continued under  the   principal  successor  State  to  the  State  of Hyderabad,  namely,   the  State   of  Andhra  Pradesh.  The contention of the Respondent, however, is that such approval has, in  fact, been  given by  the Central Government by the said letter  dated April  28, 1973.  This  contention  found favour with  the Division  Bench of  the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The said letter dated April 28, 1973, was in reply to a  letter  dated  March  13,  1973,  written  by  the  Joint Secretary to the Government of Andhra 926 Pradesh, Finance  Department. In the said letter dated March 13, 1973,  after referring to the Demonetization Act and the Rules it  was stated  that there  was an omission to convert the maximum  limit of  pension of  O.S. Rs.  1,000 into I.G. Currency but  in practice,  how ever, the figure was treated as  O.S.  Rs.  1,000  and  all  pensions  sanctioned  before November 1,  1956, were  restricted to  Rs. 857.15 being the equivalent in I.G. Currency of O.S. Rs. 1,000. Incidentally, there is  nothing on  the record to bear out this statement. The issue  of the  said erratum  and the judgment the Andhra Pradesh High Court striking it down were then recited in the said letter. It was then stated that the Government held the view that  as no  one was  paid more than Rs. 857.15 in I.G. Currency prior to November 1, 1956, the condition of service that the  maximum pension  admissible should be Rs. 1,000 in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 17  

I.G. Currency did not exist and that it came into being only by virtue  of the  judgment delivered  by the Andhra Pradesh High Court In 1970, that is, in the said writ petition filed by Daulat  Rai and  two others,  and that it was, therefore, felt by the State Government that what it had done was not a variation in  the conditions  of service  of any employee to his disadvantage  but an  action taken  to give effect to an actual situation that existed prior to November 1, 1956. The said letter then went on to state:           "It,  therefore,  does  not  appear  necessary  to      obtain previous  approval of  Government of  India  for      this amendment  under the proviso to section 115 of the      S.R. Act,  1956. Should  however  Government  of  India      consider it  otherwise they  may kindly accord approval      for the amendment as explained earlier."      Along with  the papers  forwarded with  the said letter was a  copy of the said Notification dated February 3, 1971. By his  reply dated  April 28, 1973, to the said letter, the Joint  Secretary   to  the   Government  of  India,  Cabinet Secretariat, Department  of Personnel  and A.R.,  stated  as follows:           "I am  directed to  refer  to  the  correspondence      resting  with   Shri  P.R.  Kale’s  letter  No.  14154-      A/462/Pen.I/72, dated  March  13,  1973  on  the  above      subject and  to say that the Government of India agrees      with the  view of  the State  Government that  since no      retired employee  was paid  a pension  of more than Rs.      857.15 in Indian currency before 927      1.11.1956, the  proposed  amendment  in  the  Hyderabad      Civil  Service   Rules  is   not  a  variation  in  the      conditions  of   service  of   any  employee   to   his      disadvantage after 1.11.1956 and does not require prior      approval of  the Government  of India under Section 115      of the States Reorganization Act, 1956."      The Division  Bench of  the Andhra  Pradesh High  Court took the  view that  "when all  the facts  relating  to  the pension admissible  to an employee governed by the Hyderabad Civil Service  Rules were  placed before  the Government  of India and  when gave a considered opinion, that opinion is a prior approval  satisfying the  requirement of  section  115 (7)". We are unable to follow this line of reasoning, By the said letter  dated March  13, 1973,  the Government of India was requested to accord approval to the said amendment if it considered it  necessary so  to do.  By its said reply dated April 28, 1973, the Government of India categorically stated that the  said amendment  did not require its prior approval under the  said section 115 and, therefore, did not give any approval to  the said amendment. To equate the not giving of approval with  a prior  approval satisfying the requirements of the  proviso to sub-section (7) of section 115 appears to us to  be a  contradiction in  terms as  also to  say that a letter written on April 28, 1973, was a prior approval given to an  amendment which  was made more than two years earlier on February  3, 1971.  The Statement made in the said letter dated  March  13,  1973  that  by  the  said  amendment  the conditions of  service were  not being  varied was incorrect because by  the said  amendment the  maximum pension  of  Rs 1,000 per  month in  I.G. Currency  was being reduced to the equivalent in  that currency  of O.S.  Rs. 1,000  per month, namely,  to   Rs.  857.15   per  month  and  that  too  with retrospective effect  from the date of the coming into force of the rules, namely, October 1, 1954. For such an amendment the previous approval of the Central Government was required by the  proviso to  sub-section (7)  of  section  115.  Such

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 17  

approval was  not given  and the  amendment made by the said Notification was,  therefore, invalid and inoperative so far as it  concerned persons  referred to in sub-section (1) and (2) of  section 115  of the  States Reorganization  Act. The question whether  even with  respect to  persons other  than those  referred  it  in  the  said  sub-sections,  the  said Notification in  so far as it is retrospective is valid does not arise in these Appeals and does not fall to be decided.      In this  view  of  the  matter  it  is  unnecessary  to consider the  other points  arising in  these Appeals except the Respondent’s con- 928 tention that  the Appellant in each of these two Appeals had waived his  right to  receive pension  on the basis that the maximum pension  admissible under clause (b) of Rule 299 (1) is Rs.  1,000 and  was, therefore,  estopped  from  claiming pension on  that  basis.  There  is  no  substance  in  this contention. This  point was  never taken  in the High Court. Further, apart from the fact that there cannot be any waiver of the right to receive pension payable under the rules made in that  behalf, there is no factual basis whatever for this contention. The  Appellant Ahmed  Hussain  Khan  retired  on April S,  1972. By  [he said Government order dated June 22, 1973, his  pension was  in fact  fixed on the basis that the maximum pension  admissible under  Rule 299  (1) (b) was Rs. 1,000 per  month in I.G. Currency. This order was revised by the order dated July 2, 1973, by which his pension was fixed on the  basis that  the maximum  pension admissible  was Rs. 857.15 per  month. Within  a short  time thereafter  in  the course of  that year  he filed his writ petition in the High Court and  the said  writ petition was heard and disposed of by the  learned Single  Judge by  his judgment  delivered on July 16,  1974. So  far  as  the  Appellant  S.  Gopalan  is concerned, he retired on April 14, 1973, and his pension was fixed by  the Government  order dated  May 8,  1973, on  the basis that  the maximum  pension admissible  under the Rules was Rs. 857.15 per month. He also filed his writ petition in the same  year and  it  was  decided  along  with  the  writ petition filed  by Ahmed  Hussain Khan  by the said judgment delivered on July 16, 1974.      For the  reasons  set  out  above,  we  hold  that  the Appellant in  each of  these  two  Appeals  is  entitled  to receive pension  on  the  basis  that  the  maximum  pension admissible under  clause (b)  of sub-rule (1) of Rule 299 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules is Rs. 1,000 per month in Government of India Currency and not Rs. 857.15 per month in that currency.      In the result, we allow both these Appeals, reverse the judgment of  the Division  Bench of  the Andhra Pradesh High Court and  set aside  the orders appealed against. We direct the State  of Andhra  Pradesh to  fix within  one month from today the  pension payable to the Appellant in each of these two Appeals  from the  date on  which he became eligible for payment of  pension, that  is, from  the date  on  which  he retired from  Government  service  on  the  basis  that  the maximum pension  admissible under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule  299 of  the Hyderabad  Civil Services  Rules in Rs. 1,000 per  month in Government of India Currency. We further direct the State of 929 Andhra Pradesh  to pay to the Appellant in each of these two Appeals the  balance of the amount of pension payable to him for the  past period according to such refixation within one month from the date of refixation of his pension.      The Respondent  will pay  to the  Appellant in  each of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 17  

these two  Appeals the costs of the Appeal in this Court and of the  writ petition  and the  writ appeal  in  the  Andhra Pradesh High Court. H.S.K.                                       Appeals allowed 930