Supreme Court Dismisses State Appeal and Upholds Tahvildar as Civil Servant under Article 311(2) of Constitution. Court Holds Tahvildar Appointed in Cash Department Holds Civil Post under State and Is Entitled to Reasonable Opportunity Before Removal Despite Appointment by Government Treasurer.

Case Note & Summary

The dispute concerned the employment status of a Tahvildar in the Cash Department of a District Treasury in Uttar Pradesh and whether such a person could claim protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The respondent, Audh Narain Singh, was appointed as a Tahvildar in 1949 in the District of Azamgarh by Dhanpat Singh Tandon, the Government Treasurer, with the approval of the District Magistrate. The Government Treasurer held a specific post created in the District Treasury, was appointed by the Collector subject to the approval of the Finance Secretary, and was bound by Government rules and orders. The Treasurer was authorised to appoint Tahvildars to assist him in discharging his duties, but such appointments required the approval of the District Collector. In 1956, the respondent was removed from service under instructions from the Collector, without being afforded a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the removal order and a writ of mandamus to treat him as a Tahvildar in the sub-treasury at Lalganj. He contended that he was a member of the civil service of the State of Uttar Pradesh or held a civil post under the State and therefore could not be removed without complying with Article 311(2). The High Court, both at the single judge and appellate stage, held that the respondent was an employee of the State Government and that the removal order was invalid because the mandatory requirements of Article 311(2) had not been observed. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The only question raised before the Supreme Court was whether a Tahvildar appointed in the Cash Department in the State of Uttar Pradesh is a civil servant of the State of Uttar Pradesh or holds a civil post in the State. The appellants argued, in substance, that the appointment was made by the Government Treasurer and not directly by the State, and therefore no direct master-servant relationship existed between the State and the Tahvildar. The respondent contended that the Treasurer acted as an agent of the State, the Tahvildar was paid from State funds, and the State exercised control over his service conditions, including transfer, removal and disciplinary action. The Supreme Court analysed the terms of engagement of the Government Treasurer and the Tahvildars. It held that the Government Treasurer was not an independent contractor but a civil servant under the control of the State, performing executive functions. The Treasurer had authority to appoint Tahvildars to assist him, but the appointments were made with the approval of the District Collector. Tahvildars received their remuneration directly from the State and were subject to the control of District Officers in matters of transfer, removal and disciplinary action. The Court reiterated the principles laid down in Shivanandan Sharma v. The Punjab National Bank Ltd., Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra, and M/s Piyare Lal Adisivar Lal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, that the relationship of master and servant is a question of fact to be determined by all material circumstances, and that the right of the employer to control the method of doing work and the power of superintendence are strongly indicative of such relationship. Applying these tests, the Court concluded that the Tahvildar was a civil servant of the State of Uttar Pradesh and held a civil post under the State. Accordingly, the order terminating his services without complying with the procedural safeguards of Article 311(2) was invalid. The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's decision was affirmed.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondent was a civil servant of the State of Uttar Pradesh and that the order terminating his services was invalid because the requirements of Article 311(2) were not conformed to. The High Court's decision was affirmed.

Law Points