SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, CJI., A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.
State Election Commissioner, Bihar Patna & others - Appellants
Versus
Janakdhari Prasad and others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1463 of 2008
Decided On : 03-07-2018
AIR 1954 SC 653; AIR 1955 SC 166; AIR 1964 SC 254; AIR 1958 SC 52; (1969) 2 SCR 422 ; (1969) 3 SCC 268; (1977) 1 SCC 70; (1985) 1 SCC 151; (2001) 7 SCC 425; (2006) 5 SCC 266 – Relied upon
[1942] AC 561 – Referred
(b) Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 – Section 139 – Appellant appointed to post of Assistant Government Advocate in the panel of Assistant Government Advocates – No mention of any fixed remuneration – Whether service under State – No master-servant relationship – Respondent not amenable to any disciplinary proceeding – Respondent, held, not in Government service. (Para 33)
AIR 1967 SC 884; AIR 1967 SC 1889 – Relied upon
(1991) 1 SCC 212; (1979) 4 SCC 701; (1988) 3 SCC 144 – Referred
Facts of the case:
Janakdhari Prasad, the 1st respondent herein, was elected in the year 2001 as a member of Panchayat Samiti, Nagarnausa. On 13th February, 2004, the fifth respondent, Ravindra Nath Sharma, filed a petition before the State Election Commission, Bihar contending, inter alia, that the respondent No. 1 was working as an Assistant Government Pleader in Hilsa, subdivision of District Nalanda and, therefore, he was disqualified to hold the post of member, Panchayat Samiti.
The Election Commission disqualified the respondent under Section 139(l)(c) of the Act from the post of Member in the Panchayat Samiti.
The 1st respondent preferred a Writ Petition (CWJC) for quashment of the order of the Commission. The Single Judge set aside the order of the Commission.
Division Bench of the High Court concurred with the view expressed by the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
Respondent was not a Government servant.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Dipak Misra, CJI.
Janakdhari Prasad, the 1st respondent herein, was elected in the year 2001 as a member of Panchayat Samiti, Nagarnausa. On 13th February, 2004, the fifth respondent, Ravindra Nath Sharma, filed a petition before the State Election Commission, Bihar (for short “the Commission”) contending, inter alia, that the respondent No. 1 was working as an Assistant Government Pleader in Hilsa, subdivision of District Nalanda and, therefore, he was disqualified to hold the post of member, Panchayat Samiti in view of Section 139(l)(c) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for brevity, ‘the Act’).
2. The Election Commission, in order to decide the issue whether the 1st respondent was in service of the State Government within the sweep of Section 139(l)(c) of the Act, referred to the appointment letter issued by the Law Department, Government of Bihar, vide which the respondent herein was appointed as an Advocate in the panel of Assistant Government Advocates and thereafter observed that the said respondent was holding a post under the State Government and was receiving fees for the cases conducted by him from the Government and hence, he would be deemed to be in service of the State. Being of this view, the Election Commission vide order dated 29.03.2004 disqualified the respondent under Section 139(l)(c) of the Act from the post of Member in the Panchayat Samiti.
3. Aggrieved by this Order of the Commission, the 1st respondent knocked at the doors of the High Court of Judicature at Patna by preferring a Writ Petition (CWJC) No. 4322 of 2004 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order of the Commission. The learned Single Judge opined that the word “service” has not been defined under the Act and hence, its meaning has to be ascertained in the context it is used and the context in which it is used denotes various classes or category of posts within it. The learned Single Judge further observed that no hard and fast rule can be laid to ascertain as to which category of office shall come within the expression “service”, for host of factors have to be taken into consideration to determine such relationship. He further proceeded to observe that none of the factors may be conclusive and no single factor may be considered absolutely essential. Eventually, he stated:-
“In my opinion, for bringing an office within the expression 'service' of State Government there has to be a relationship of Master and Servant, age of entering and retirement, scale of pay or fixed remuneration, the Conduct and Discipline Rules and such other factors. The presence of one ingredient or the other may not necessarily bring a particular office within the expression 'service' in the context of disqualification but presence of some or the other is necessary for the purpose.”
Thereafter, the learned Single Judge examined the nature of appointment of a Government pleader who is paid a retainership as fee and differentiated between the nature of appointment of an Assistant Government Pleader from that of a Government Pleader and came to hold that so far as the Assistant Government Pleader is concerned, he is appointed to assist the Government Pleader and for the professional work rendered, he is paid remuneration but not paid any retainer fee. He further expressed the view that a Government Pleader is not entitled to appear against the State Government but an Assistant Government Pleader, can appear, against the State Government in a case. The Assistant Government Pleader is basically an Advocate on the roll of the State Bar Council and besides giving professional advice to other litigants by virtue of his/her engagement by the State Government, he/she also advises and represents the State Government in Courts of Law. The appointment of the Government Pleader is governed by the executive instruction which is a tenure appointment and he remains a legal practitioner for all purpose and intent. That apart, the engagement of an
Ravanna Subanna v. G.S. Kaggeerappa
Sakhawant Ali v. State of Orissa
Guru Gobinda Basu v. Sankari Prasad Ghosal
Maulana Abdul Shakur v. Rikhab Chand
Srimati Kanta Kathuria v. Manak Chand Surana
Madhukar G.E. Pankakar v. Jaswant Chobbildas Rajani
Ashok Kumar Bhattacharyya v. Ajoy Biswas
Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India
State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra Dutta
Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India
Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.