SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1958 Supreme(All) 198

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. N. Gurtu and Jagdish Sahai, JJ.
PIRTHWINATH CHOWDHRY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Writ Petn. 204 Of 1958
Decided On : 11/08/1958

Advocates Appeared:
B.K.DHAON, BISHUN SINGH, IQBAL AHMED, K.S.Verma, KESRI BIR PRASAD, S.D.MISHRA

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner was not a member of the civil service of the State of Uttar Pradesh, and the termination of the petitioner's services amounted to a removal.

Headnote:

CIVIL SERVICE - UTTAR PRADESH - U. P. State Law Officers Rules 1942 - Articles 308 to 314 of the Constitution of India - The court discussed the petitioner's status as a member of the civil service of the State of Uttar Pradesh, the termination of the petitioner's services, the application of the new Rule 7 of the U. P. State Law Officers Rules 1942, and the issuance of a writ in the circumstances of the case.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Prithwi Nath Chowdhry, was appointed as a law officer under the U. P. State Law Officers Rules 1942 for a period of three years. The questions for determination in this case were whether the petitioner was a member of the civil service of the State of Uttar Pradesh, whether the termination of the petitioner's services amounted to an order of removal, the prospective or retrospective application of the new Rule 7 of the U. P. State Law Officers Rules 1942, and whether a writ could be issued in the circumstances of the case.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was not a member of the civil service of the State of Uttar Pradesh and that the termination of the petitioner's services amounted to a removal. The court also found that the new Rule 7 of the U. P. State Law Officers Rules 1942 did not have retrospective effect and that a writ could be issued in the circumstances of the case.

Issues: The issues in the case included the petitioner's status as a member of the civil service of the State of Uttar Pradesh, the nature of the termination of the petitioner's services, the application of the new Rule 7 of the U. P. State Law Officers Rules 1942, and the availability of a writ in the circumstances of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was not a member of the civil service of the State of Uttar Pradesh, that the termination of the petitioner's services amounted to a removal, that the new Rule 7 of the U. P. State Law Officers Rules 1942 did not have retrospective effect, and that a writ could be issued in the circumstances of the case.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition with costs and issued a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to treat the petitioner as an Additional Government Advocate.


JAGDISH SAHAI, J.

( 1 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition have been fully given by my brother Gurtu and it is not necessary to narrate them again in this judgment. The questions for determination in this case are as follows : 1. Whether or not the petitioner Sri Prithwi Nath Chowdhry was a member of the civil service of the State of Uttar Pradesh or held a civil post under the said State within the meaning of Articles 310 and 311-of the Constitution of India?

( 2 ) WHETHER the termination of the petitioners services amounts to an order of removal so as to attract the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India?

( 3 ) WHETHER the new Rule 7 of the U. P. State Law Officers Rules 1942, is prospective or retrospective in its application and whether the petitioner could be retired from service before completing full three years of service after his reappointment?

( 4 ) WHETHER a writ can be issued in the circumstances of the present case? 2. Admittedly the petitioner was appointed as a law officer under the United Provinces Crown law Officers Rules, 1942, (hereinafter called the Rules ). Rule 2 of the said Rules runs as follows :

"2. The posts dealt with by these rules are tenure posts and are classed as specialist. They carry with them part time civil employment under the Crown. "

The petitioner was thus in the part time civil employment of the State of Uttar Pradesh and was holding a tenure post, classed as specialist. "tenure Post" has been defined in the U. P. Fundamental Rules as follows :"tenure post means a permanent post which an individual Government servant may not hold for more than a limited period. "

The petitioner in this case was appointed on 16-4-1957 to hold the office of Additional government Advocate for a period of three years from that date. It is not the petitioners case, and it cannot be his case, that he belonged to the civil service of the Union. In order to decide whether he belonged to the civil service of this State it will be necessary to determine as to what does the expression "member of. . . . . . . a civil service of a State" mean. The expression "civil service" has not been defined in the Constitution or anywhere else. In the Oxford Dictionary its meaning has been given as follows :"1785 orig. That part of the service of the East India Company carried on by the covenanted servants who did not belong to the Army or Navy (cf. SERVICE); now, all the non-warlike departments of the public administrative service of the State, also the body of servants of the state employed in this service. "

3. In England administrative Government is carried out mainly by departments e. g. , the treasury, the Foreign Office, the Home Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office, the colonial Office, the War Office, the Law Officers Department, the Post Office, the Ministry of labour and National Service, the Ministry of Transport, etc. The departments are staffed by administrative, professional, technical, executive and clerical officers who constitute the civil service. There are various grades in the civil service in England. Thus in England the members of the administrative grade, the professional, scientific and technical officers, the members of the executive grade, the clerks, the typists, the workers in the post office, the service departments and the Ministry of Supply are considered to be members of the civil service. In fact practically all the employees of the Government except those employed in the armed forces are considered to be members of the civil service. In my opinion the dictionary meaning or what in England constitutes the civil service cannot be of much help to us because we have to go by the provisions of our Constitution in deciding that matter.

4. Articles 308 to 314 find place in Chapter I of Part XIV of the Constitution of India. The head-note to Part XIV is "services under the Union and the States. " The head-note to Chapter I is "services. " Article 309 gives the appropriate Legislature





























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top