https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276931 The appellant filed a suit against Saurashtra State for premature retirement compensation. The Trial Court awarded compensation, but the High Court reversed the decision, citing the legislative incompetence of the Wadhwan State Ruler post-covenant. The High Court held that the Ruler lacked competence to enact laws post-covenant. The Municipal Courts could enforce existing rights unless repealed or repudiated. The appellant's rights under Dhara No. 29 of St. 2004 were protected post-merger with Saurashtra State. The Court disagreed with aligning compensation with Wadhwan State benefits, awarding reasonable compensation based on entitlement to serve until 60. The appeal was allowed, restoring the Trial Court's decree in favor of the appellant. en-us Tue, 04 May 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Nov 2018 15:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276931 The appellant filed a suit against Saurashtra State for premature retirement compensation. The Trial Court awarded compensation, but the High Court reversed the decision, citing the legislative incompetence of the Wadhwan State Ruler post-covenant. The High Court held that the Ruler lacked competence to enact laws post-covenant. The Municipal Courts could enforce existing rights unless repealed or repudiated. The appellant's rights under Dhara No. 29 of St. 2004 were protected post-merger with Saurashtra State. The Court disagreed with aligning compensation with Wadhwan State benefits, awarding reasonable compensation based on entitlement to serve until 60. The appeal was allowed, restoring the Trial Court's decree in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 04 May 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276931