Supreme Court Upholds Appellant's Right to Hereditary Military Pension — Executive Order Terminating Pension Found Invalid.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute involved the appellant's claim to a hereditary military pension known as Bachat, granted by the Rulers of Gwalior to his ancestors for military service. The right to this pension was recognized by Kalambandis issued in 1912 and 1935. After the integration of Gwalior into Madhya Bharat, the government issued an executive order terminating the pension. The appellant challenged this order in the High Court, arguing that the Kalambandis constituted existing law under Article 372 of the Constitution and could not be revoked by an executive order. The High Court dismissed the appellant's petition, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the Kalambandis were indeed existing law. It concluded that the Kalambandis had the force of law and thus the executive order could not extinguish the appellant's right to the pension. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed that a proper writ be issued in favor of the appellant, entitling him to costs throughout.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Existing Law - Kalambandis as Existing Law - Constitution of India, Article 372 - The court held that the Kalambandis issued by the Rulers of Gwalior constituted existing law, as they had the force of law and governed the rights of the subjects, thus could not be extinguished by an executive order. (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Kalambandis under which the appellant's right to receive a military pension constituted existing law under Article 372 of the Constitution.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed that a proper writ be issued in favor of the appellant, entitling him to costs throughout.

Law Points

  • Constitutional law
  • existing law
  • executive orders
  • statutory rights
  • hereditary military pension
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

Civil Appeal No. 84 of 1954

1960-10-03

B. P. Sinha, J. L. Kapur, P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. Subba Rao, K. N. Wanchu

B. Sen, P. V. Sahasrabudhe, B. K. B. Naidu, I. N. Shroff, M. Adhikan, Advocate-General for the State of Madhya Pradesh, H. J. Umrigar, R. H. Dhehar

Madhavrao Phalke

The State of Madhya Bharat

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to the termination of a hereditary military pension by executive order.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought a writ to prevent the enforcement of the executive order terminating his pension.

Filing Reason

The appellant argued that his right to the pension was statutorily recognized and could not be extinguished by an executive order.

Previous Decisions

The High Court dismissed the appellant's petition, holding that the Kalambandis did not constitute existing law.

Issues

Whether the Kalambandis constituted existing law under Article 372 of the Constitution. Whether the executive order could extinguish the appellant's right to the pension.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant contended that the Kalambandis were recognized laws that could not be revoked by an executive order. The respondents argued that the payments were emoluments for military service and did not constitute property.

Ratio Decidendi

The Kalambandis issued by the Rulers of Gwalior constituted existing law under Article 372 of the Constitution, and an executive order could not extinguish rights guaranteed by such existing law.

Judgment Excerpts

The question must be answered in the affirmative. No distinction could be made between an executive order and a legislative command made by an absolute monarch.

Procedural History

The appellant filed a petition in the High Court challenging the executive order. The High Court dismissed the petition, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed additional evidence and remanded the case to the High Court, which ultimately found in favor of the appellant. The case was then brought back to the Supreme Court for final disposal.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 372, Article 31
  • Central Provinces and Berar Goondas Act, 1946: Section 4, Section 4-A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Promotion Date for Backward Class Employee in Municipal Corporation Case. The court ruled that the promotion could not be backdated to 23.5.1974 due to the lack of enforceability of the resolution until 12.9.1975.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Examines Default Bail Plea Against Custody Extension Under Organised Crime Act. Statutory Bail Application Ignored; Extension Sought Beyond 90 Days Violates Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and Fundamental Rights.