Bhargava, J. - (1.) The appellant, K. Gopaul, was appointed to the Madras Registration Service as a direct recruit and commenced his service on posting as a District Registrar in January 1939. Under the latest Rules governing the Madras Registration Service, the Service, consists of two Classes. Class I has only one post in it, viz., Inspector-General of Registration. In Class II, there are two categories, category 1 consists of posts of Inspectors of Registration Offices, and category 2 of posts of District Registrars. Under these Rules, the appellant was promoted as Inspector-General of Registration (hereinafter referred to as "I. G. R.") in the post in Class I on 8th June 1956, and was confirmed in that post by the Government Order, dated 9th November 1957, with effect from 9th June 1956. While he was still holding this post, the post of I. G. R. was included in the cadre of the Indian Administrative Service with effect from 11th November 1963. On 25th January 1964, a Government Order was issued posting one O. H. Dias of the Indian Administrative Service, who was holding a post of Deputy Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, as I. G. R., Madras, vice the appellant. That Government Order contained a note that orders regarding the posting of the appellant will be issued separately from the Home Department. Then, on 30th January 1964, a Government Order was issued posting the appellant to act temporarily as Accommodation Controller, Madras, vice one M. Sargunam. That Order further laid down that the appellant, as Accommodation Controller, will continue to draw his grade pay in the scale of Rs. 1,200-100 / 2-1,400 and, in addition, he will draw a special pay Rs. 100 per month and also a conveyance allowance of Rs. 75 per month if a car is maintained or Rupees 62/50 per month, if no car is maintained. On receiving this Order, the appellant moved a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Madras, seeking the quashing of the Order of the Government of India placing the post of I. G. R., Madras, in the Cadre of the Indian Administrative Service with effect from l1th November 1963, as well as the Order of the Madras Government, dated 30th January 1964, transferring the appellant to the post of Accommodation Controller, Madras. In pursuance of the Government Order made on the 5th January 1964, a notification was published in the Gazette, dated 5th February 1964. In this notification, the posting of O. H. Dias as I. G. R. Madras, in place of the appellant, was notified. In addition, it was laid down that the cadre post of Director of Fisheries, Madras, was to be kept temporarily in abeyance until further orders, and, instead, sanction was accorded to the creation of a temporary post of Director of Fisheries, Madras, in the grade of a Deputy Secretary to Government (non-I. A. S.) for a period of six months from the date of appointment or till the need for ceased, whichever was earlier. The notification proceeded to lay down that M. Sargunam is posted to act as Director of Fisheries, Madras, in the newly sanctioned post. Obviously, this posting was ordered, so that the post of Accommodation Controller, to which the appellant was transferred, should fall vacant and should be available for the appellant to take charge of it.
(2.) While the petition before the High Court was still pending, another Order was issued by the Madras Government on the 6th June 1964, keeping the temporary post of Accommodation Controller, Madras, which earlier existed in the cadre of Deputy Secretary (non-I. A. S.), in abeyance with effect from 6th February 1964 afternoon, and with effect from the same date, sanction was accorded to the creation of a temporary post of Accommodation Controller, Madras, in the scale of Rs. 1,200-100/2-1,400 for the period from 6-2-1964 to 14-4-1964 afternoon both days inclusive. This scale of pay, it appears, was the scale in which the appellant was drawing his salary in the post of I. G. R. By this Order, dated 6th June 1964, it was further directed that the appellant, who was appointed as Accommodation Controller by the Order, dated 30th January 1984, should he deemed to have acted in the post sanctioned by this Order during the period from 6-2-1964 afternoon to the afternoon of 14-4-1964 (both days inclusive). It may be mentioned that after the Order of 6th June 1964 had been passed, the appellant moved another petition in the High Court challenging that Order also. Both the petitions were decided by a common judgment by a single Judge of the High Court on 2nd December 1964.
(3.) The appellant then filed appeals before a Division Bench of the High Court. While these appeals were pending before the Division Bench, a letter was sent on behalf of the Government of Madras to the Counsel representing the Government in the appeals on 27th August 1965. In that letter it was stated that, when the post of I. G. R. was included in the Indian Administrative Service Cadre of the State, the Government had decided that, in order to protect the rights of the appellant, a supernumerary post of I. G. R. in the State Service should be created with effect from 11th November 1963, the date on which the above post was included in the Indian Administrative Service Cadre. It was added that, in the circumstances, there would not be any reduction in the pension and gratuity of the appellant consequent on the inclusion of the post of I. G. R. in the Indian Administrative Service. It appears that, by this time, it was realised by the Government that the effect of the earlier Orders made in the case of the appellant was that the appellant was not holding lien on any permanent post and was only working on the temporary post of Accommodation Controller with the result that the appellant was likely to suffer in the matter of earning pension and gratuity in his service. The Bench of the High Court hearing the appeals took notice of this letter and dismissed the appeals on the 14th October 1965, holding that all the rights of the appellant in respect of pension and gratuity had been protected and that there had been no removal from service or reduction in rank in the case of the appellant. Thereupon, the appellant sought leave to appeal to this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution against the common order of the High Court dismissing the two appeals arising out of the two writ petitions. Special leave was granted and that is how these appeals have come up before us.;