Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. K. Sen, C. J. and A. K. Yog, J.
RAM NIHOR SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 5160 Of 2001
Decided On : 05/18/2001
L. R. Manual - District Government Counsel - 7.01, 7.03, 7.08, 7.09
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a District Government Counsel (Civil), challenged the non-renewal of his term upon reaching the age of 60. The impugned orders were based on the misconception that the age of superannuation for the counsel was 60 years.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned orders were found to be based on a non-existent ground and were quashed. The court held that the L. R. Manual does not impose an age limit of 60 years for the renewal of a District Government Counsel's term.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the non-renewal of the petitioner's term as a District Government Counsel (Civil) based on the misconception of the age of superannuation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the L. R. Manual does not impose an age limit of 60 years for the renewal of a District Government Counsel's term and that the impugned orders were based on a non-existent ground.
Final Decision: The petition succeeded, and the impugned orders were quashed. A writ of mandamus was issued to command the respondents to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
( 1 ) A short counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of all the respondents. Learned counsels for all the parties agreed that the case may be finally heard and decided at the admission stage as contemplated under Chapter XXII, Rule 2 (Second Proviso) of the Rules of the Court, 1952 (as amended upto date ).
( 2 ) HEARD learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Swaroop, Additional advocate General representing all the respondents.
( 3 ) FACTS of the case, required for decision of this petition, are not disputed.
( 4 ) RAM Nihor Singh, petitioner, is a duly enrolled Advocate on the Rolls of the Bar Council of uttar Pradesh. He is a regular legal practitioner of the District Court. He was appointed as assistant District Government Counsel (Civil) in 1978 by the State Government to conduct cases on its behalf, as is evident from the perusal of the District Magistrates letter dated October 6, 1978 (Annexure-3) to the Writ Petition ). Vide Government letter February 3, 1980. addressed to the District Magistrate. Allahabad. Annexure-4 to the writ petition. petitioner was required to take charge as District Government Counsel (Civil) as an interim measure on ad hoc basis in place of Satya Prakash Goyal, Advocate, the then outgoing District Government Counsel (Civil ). Annexure-5 to the writ petition is a copy of the registered letter dated July 31, 1991 from U. P. Government to the District Magistrate. Allahabad, which contains list of advocates appointed by the Government as District Government Counsels (Civil) and Assistant District Government counsel (Civil ). The name of the petitioner appears at Serial No. 1 in the list. Letter of the government, dated December 31, 1991. addressed to the petitioner (Annexure-6 to the Writ petition) shows that his appointment as District Government Counsel (Civil) was extended by the Government subject to submitting certain certificates. The term was again extended vide government letter dated September 6. 1996 (Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition) till 4th September, 1999. Government letter dated January 11, 2000 addressed to the District Magistrate. Allahabad filed as Annexure-8 to the Writ Petition shows that term of the petitioner was extended regularised till January 2, 2001, i. e. , till 60 years of age of the petitioner.
( 5 ) BEFORE aforesaid letter January 11, 2000 (Annexure-8 to the Writ Petition) was issued. It appears, action was taken to consider the case of the petitioner for extension/ renewal as District government Counsel (Civil) in pursuance to the provisions of Legal Remembranee Manual (for short called l. R. Manual ). Photocopy of Chapter VII of L. R. Manual, dealing with district government Counsel--A. Appointment and Conditions of Engagement has been filed as annexure-11 to the Writ Petition. Relevant provisions of L. R. Manual for the purpose of the present case, namely paras 7. 01. 7. 03, 7. 08 and 7. 09 are being reproduced below : 7. 01 Definition.-- (1) The District Government Counsels are legal practitioners appointed by the state Government to conduct in any court, other than the High Court, such civil, criminal or revenue cases on behalf of the State Government, as may be assigned to them either generally, or specially by the Government. (2) The legal practitioner, appointed to conduct criminal cases shall be known as District government Counsel (Criminal ). Similarly the legal practitioners, appointed to conduct civil and revenue cases, shall be known as District Government Counsel (Civil) and District Government counsel (Revenue) respectively. Note.--The expression District Government Counsel in this Chapter refers to District government Counsel (Civil) in respect of civil work, to District Government Counsel (Criminal)in respect of criminal work and to District Government Counsel (Revenue) in respect of revenue work and includes Additional Assistant/sub-District Government Counsel, wherever, so required by the context. 7. 03 Applicat
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
