from service. ·On the same date Dr. Jivraj Mehta became the Diwan and President of the Executive Council in place of Sri Sudhalkar. On the representations of Dr. Jivraj Mehta the Maharaja pssed another Hur ~rder on July 22, 1948 modifying his previous orders and drrectmg that the respondent _and the other officials woul.d draw pension only as and when they would reach the age of retirement and that the respondent would in addition draw the salary to which he might be eligible under the Account Rules. In October 1948 there was correspondence touching the Huzur Orders between the Maharaja and Dr. Jivraj Mehta. On April 22, 1949 the Executive Council of the State of Baroda headed by Dr. Jivraj Mehta purported to review 'and set aside the Huzur Orders with respect to payment of compensation to the retiring officials and directed that ( 1) the respondent would get 4 months' privilege leave salary and as from April l, 1949 the pension of Rs. 5001- per month sanctioned by the Maharaja, (2) the amount received by the respondent as compensation be forfeited to the State and returned by him to the Treasury; . (3) Rs. 77,416/consequently due from him after taking into account his salary and pension up to March 31, 1949 be recovered from him under s. 148 of the Baroda Land Revenue Code. Pursuant to this order the respondent's properties were attached on April 26, 1949. The respondent was compelled to refund to the State Treasury Rs. 55,000/- on April 27, 1949 and Rs. 10,000/ on April 29, 1949. On March 14, 1952 the Collector of Baroda sent ·a notice to the respondent demanding payment of the balance of Rs. 12,416/-. The respondent continued to draw pension at the rate of Rs. 500/per month from April 1, 1949. On April 17, 1952 he gave notice of his intention to file the present suit under s. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On June 23, 1952 he instituted the suit against the State of Bombay asking for a declaration that the Huzur order dated February 8, 1948 as modified by the Hurur order dated July 22, 1948 was valid and binding on the defendant, a declaration that the, order of the Executive Council dated April 22, 1949 was invalid, an injunction restraining the defendant from recovering Rs. 12,416/- and a decree for Rs. 65,000/- and interest thereon tofalling Rs. 77,300/-, future interest and costs. On August 31, 1955, the Trial Court decreed tlle suit. On appeal, the High Court held that tlle respondent was entitled to recover Rs. 65,000/only wtiliout interest and was liable to refund Rs. 17 ,250 /- drawn on account of pension from April 1, 1949 up to February 14, 1952. Consequently, the High Court reduced the money decree to Rs. 4 7, 7 50 /- give proportionate costs and confirmed the rest of the decree. The present appeal has been filed by the State of Gujarat after obtaining a certificate from the High Court.
