A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The landmark Supreme Court decision in The State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid (1954 SCR 786) marks a critical shift in the service jurisprudence of India. It decisively rejected the doctrine that civil servants in India hold office solely at the pleasure of the Crown, as followed in English common law. The ruling emphasized that Indian civil servants have enforceable rights and can seek remedies through civil suits for wrongful dismissal and arrears of salary. The Court interpreted Section 240 of the Government of India Act, 1935, as conferring not merely a discretionary administrative privilege, but also as prescribing mandatory protections against dismissal by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. By recognising a civil servant’s right to maintain a suit against the State for arrears of salary, the Supreme Court unequivocally affirmed that India’s statutory framework overrides residual prerogatives inherited from English law. The judgment significantly fortified the position of government employees under Indian administrative law and repudiated colonial vestiges concerning sovereign immunity and Crown privilege. It remains a cornerstone in understanding the contractual and statutory protections available to public servants in India.

Keywords: wrongful dismissal, civil servant rights, Government of India Act 1935, arrears of salary, statutory protection, Section 240, State liability, sovereign immunity, employment tenure, public service law.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: The State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid

ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 70 of 1952

iii) Judgement Date: 11 February 1954

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Mehr Chand Mahajan C.J., Mukherjea, S.R. Das, Vivian Bose, and Ghulam Hasan JJ.

vi) Author: Mehr Chand Mahajan, C.J.

vii) Citation: AIR 1954 SC 245; 1954 SCR 786

viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Section 240 of the Government of India Act, 1935, Section 60 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Rule 95 of Bihar and Orissa Service Code

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any): No express overruling, but distinguished and declined to follow High Commissioner for India and Pakistan v. I.M. Lall, 75 I.A. 225.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects: Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Service Law, Civil Procedure

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute in this case centered around whether a civil servant in India can maintain a suit for arrears of salary against the State following wrongful dismissal. The respondent, Abdul Majid, a Sub-Inspector in Bihar Police, was dismissed by an authority junior to his appointing officer. The dismissal was held to be illegal. However, despite reinstatement during pendency of the suit, the question arose whether he could claim salary arrears. The government argued that civil servants served at the “pleasure” of the Crown and thus could not maintain suits, invoking common law doctrines. The Supreme Court decisively rejected this colonial relic and held that statutory safeguards under the Government of India Act, 1935, prevailed over English common law. The case challenged outdated notions of sovereign immunity and emphasised that statutory and contractual rights of civil servants were enforceable under civil law. The decision realigned Indian administrative law with constitutional values of justice, fairness, and rule of law[1].

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The respondent, Abdul Majid, joined service in January 1920 as a Sub-Inspector of Police. In 1937, departmental proceedings found him guilty of cowardice and dereliction of duty. Consequently, he was demoted. On appeal, he was exonerated of some charges but ultimately dismissed by the Deputy Inspector-General on July 23, 1940, with the order served on July 29, 1940. His appeals to the Inspector-General and Governor of Bihar failed. He subsequently filed a civil suit challenging the dismissal, seeking a declaration that it was void and sought arrears of salary totaling ₹4,241 for the period from July 30, 1940, until the suit’s institution. Initially, the trial court and the appellate court rejected the suit citing that he had been reinstated during litigation, thereby making the claim infructuous. They also ruled that salary claims must follow Rule 95 of the Bihar and Orissa Service Code. The High Court, however, reversed these decisions, holding the dismissal void and ruled in favour of salary arrears amounting to ₹3,099-12-0. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, analysing both statutory provisions and common law doctrines, upheld the High Court’s decision[2].

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether Rule 95 of the Bihar and Orissa Service Code barred a claim for salary arrears in court where reinstatement was not under its procedures?

ii) Whether a civil servant could maintain a civil suit for arrears of salary against the State?

iii) Whether the doctrine of “pleasure” in Section 240 of the Government of India Act, 1935 precluded such suits?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that under the English principle, codified through colonial practice, a civil servant held office at the pleasure of the Crown. Therefore, any dismissal, even if later reconsidered or voided, could not give rise to a monetary claim for salary. They argued that Abdul Majid was reinstated later and therefore his claim was administrative and not justiciable. The State’s counsel also placed reliance on the Privy Council’s decision in High Commissioner for India and Pakistan v. I.M. Lall, 75 I.A. 225, to argue that no suit could lie for salary in the absence of a contractual obligation. They claimed that Rule 95 was exhaustive and had to be followed to claim back-wages or salary. It was further contended that statutory tenure at the pleasure of His Majesty under Section 240(1) implied no right of legal remedy for compensation or salary arrears once dismissed[3].

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that the dismissal was illegal as per Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, since it was executed by an officer subordinate to the appointing authority. They claimed the reinstatement was not under Rule 95, but a unilateral act post-filing of the suit and thus did not bar the claim. They emphasized the enforceable nature of statutory protections and relied on the Federal Court’s decision in Punjab Province v. Tara Chand ([1947] F.C.R. 89), which held that wrongful dismissals contravening statutory mandates gave rise to justiciable rights. They argued that procedural provisions like Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly envisaged salaries of government employees as attachable property, thereby recognising enforceability. They rejected the applicability of English common law on the basis of colonial divergence in statutory scheme and practical implementation[4].

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935 – No dismissal by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority.

ii) Rule 95, Bihar and Orissa Service Code – Conditions for grant of pay during reinstatement.

iii) Section 60, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Permits attachment of salaries for recovery.

iv) Section 292, Government of India Act, 1935 – Continuity of pre-existing laws unless repealed.

v) Article 14, Constitution of India (by implication post-1950) – Equality before law, impacted the trajectory of service law interpretation.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Supreme Court held that a civil servant can maintain a suit in civil court for arrears of salary if the dismissal was illegal. The doctrine of pleasure under Section 240(1) was held to be limited by statutory safeguards under Section 240(3). The Court ruled that a breach of these mandatory protections renders the dismissal void and entitles the dismissed employee to consequential relief, including arrears of salary. It stated that statutory tenure overrides pleasure doctrine, and service rules cannot defeat rights conferred by legislation. The Court accepted the ratio in Tara Chand as correct and distinguished I.M. Lall on facts[5].

b. OBITER DICTA 

i) The Court opined that service at pleasure cannot mean absolute discretion to dismiss without remedy, especially where statutory violations exist. It also emphasized that doctrines of English common law, including sovereign immunity and Crown privilege, are not blindly applicable in India. The Court noted that India followed statutory litigation rights against the State through CPC and pre-Constitution laws, unlike England which required petition of right[6].

c. GUIDELINES 

• A civil servant wrongfully dismissed by a junior authority can seek judicial redress.

• Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935 must be strictly complied with.

• The rule that public employment is held at pleasure is not absolute in India.

• Reinstatement without following Rule 95 does not preclude salary claims.

• Indian statutory framework overrides English doctrines where statutory rights exist.

• Salary of civil servants is attachable under Section 60 CPC, hence enforceable.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This decision marked a watershed in Indian administrative and service jurisprudence. It moved away from colonial doctrines rooted in feudal sovereign immunity and adopted a rights-based approach consistent with statutory protections and modern constitutional principles. The Supreme Court emphatically dismantled the unqualified application of the English “pleasure doctrine” and laid down a more equitable rule that recognizes statutory tenure and actionable rights. It upheld the enforceability of such rights through civil suits, thereby strengthening the rule of law and legal accountability of State employers. The ruling became a bedrock for subsequent service law decisions, promoting the dignity of public employment and accountability of State actions. The case stands as a testament to India’s post-colonial legal evolution.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

[1] Punjab Province v. Pandit Tara Chand, [1947] F.C.R. 89.
[2] High Commissioner for India and Pakistan v. I.M. Lall, 75 I.A. 225.
[3] Suraj Narain Anand v. North West Frontier Province, [1941] F.C.R. 37.
[4] Mulvenna v. The Admiralty, [1926] S.C. 842.
[5] Lucas v. Lucas and High Commissioner for India, [1943] P. 68.
[6] Bush v. R., [1869] Times Law Reports, May 29.
[7] Shenton v. Smith, [1895] A.C. 229.
[8] Dunn v. The Queen, [1896] 1 Q.B. 116.

b. Important Statutes Referred

[1] Government of India Act, 1935, Section 240, Section 292
[2] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 60, Order XXI
[3] Bihar and Orissa Service Code, Rule 95