STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & Anr. v. COL. LAL RAMPAL SINGH

increments had not been granted. The Ruler was not, therefore, acting in the exercise of his sovereign power and in disregard of the Rules; on the contrary, he was purporting to act in terms of the Rules. That being so, it has to be held that the Order of April \ 1948 is not a law but an executive order passed in terms of the Rules. It is open to the succeeding Government to set aside that order by another executive order. What appropriate order can be passed by thei Government of India is not a question that arises at the present moment. The respondent's rights under the Rewa State Rules, accepting it as a law binding on the Indian Union, are not in the least affected. He is, however, not entitled to any rights except those which the Rules justify. The first con tention of the respondent, therefore, that the order of April 3, 1948 is a law which can only be altered by another law duly passed by the Union or other competent legislature must fail. Another point raised was that if the order was not a law, it was a grant and that as the Indian Union had paid the respondent in terms of the order up to March 27, 1953, it must be deemed to have accepted that grant and it cannot now deprive the respon- dent of his right of property under the graut. It seems to us that this contention is ill-founded. What the Ruler did by his order of April 3, 1948 does not appear to have been to make a grant but to have passed an order purporting to act under the Rules. If that order was not justified by the Rules, it was illegal and is liable to be set aside by another order duly made under them. Pension is furthermore normally always a matter of grace when there is no law governing. It is implicit in the grant of a pension that it may be subsequently reviewed. Therefore the grant of the pension-assuming that to be the correct view to take-must always have been subject to alteration. The succeeding State was hence competent to review the ·order even if it had paid the pension for sometime in terms of it. In the result, in our view, the appeal must be allowed and we order accordingly. There will be no order for costs. Appeal allowed.