COAL MINES PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER versus RAMESH CHANDER JHA

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 181 · Decided: 31-01-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SAIKIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

COAL MINES PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER 
v. 
RAMESH CHANDER JHA 
JANUARY 31, 1990 
A 
[K.N. SAIKIA AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Sections 2(17) and 80-Coa/ 
Mines Provident Fund Commissioner-Whether 'public officer'. 
Respondent instituted a suit against the appellant, the Coal Mines 
Provident Fund Commissioner without a notice as required under sec-
tion 80 C.P.C. Appellant objected stating that he was a public officer 
within the meaning of the term occurring in section 80 C.P.c. and that 
the suit was incompetent. 
The trial court overruled the objection an'1 held that the appellant 
was not a pubhc officer. The High Court confirmed the same. 
Aggrieved, the appellant, has preferred this appeal by special 
leave. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1 The courts below have erred in holding that the Coal 
Mines Provident Fund Commissioner is not'-a public officer within the 
meaning_of the_ term in section 2(17)(h) of the C.P.C. The word 'service' 
c 
D 
E 
in section 2 (17)(h) C.P.C. must necessarily mean something more than 
being merely subject to the orders of Government or control of the 
Government. To serve means "to per{orm function; do what is re-
F 
quired for". The Commissioner appointed by Government performs 
the functions as envisaged in the Act and the scheme thereunder. 
When he is actually acting in the capllcity of Provident Fund Com-
missioner, he does not cease to be an officer in the service of the 
Government. f 184E-F; 18SF] 
1.2 The fact that the Commissioner receives the salary and allo-
wances out of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and not from the Govern-
ment during the tenure as Commissioner would make no difference 
when th-e description_ as an officer in the servire of the Government is 
answered. 11840 J 
181 
-G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
182 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] 1 S.C.R. 
2. In th~ present case, the Provident Fund Commissioner holds 
the office of Commissioner on appointment by Government by virtue of 
his office. His services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the 
Board constituted under Section 3 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund 
and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948. He does not, therefore, 
cease to be an officer in the service of the Government. The pay-
ment of his pay out of the Fund does not alter his status as Govern-
ment employee. [!SSE] 
Liquidator of Society Sangakheda Kalan Co-Operative Bank, 
Hoshangabad v, Ayodhyaprasad Shiamlal, AIR 1939 Nagpur 232; 
Kuppu Govinda Chattiar v. Uttukottai Co-Operative Society, AIR 1940 
Madras 831; Vishnu Wasudeo Joshi v. T.L.H. Smith Pearse, AIR 1949 
Nagpur 362; Commissioner of Wakfs, Bengal v. Shahebzada Moham-
med Zahangir Shah, AIR 1944 Calcutta 206 and Kamta Prasad Singh v. 
The Regional Manager, F. C.J., AIR 1974 Patna 376, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JTTRJSDICTION: CivilAppeal No. 1932 
of 1982. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7 .9.1981 of the Patna High 
Court in C.R. No. 341of1980 (R). 
M.C. Mahajan, Heman! Sharma and Ms. A. Subhashini for the 
E 
Appellant. 
M.P. Jha for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
F ATHIMA BEE VI, J. This appeal by special leave is against the 
G 
judgment dated 7.9.1981 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, 
Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in Civil Revision No. 341 of 1981. The short 
question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the Coal 
Mines Provident Fund Commissioner is a 'public officer' as defined in 
section 2(17) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 
Section 80 of the Code requires a notice to be issued as pre-
scribed before instituting a suit against a public officer in respect of any 
act purporting to be done by such pubic officer in his official capacity. 
The respondent herein instituted a suit against the appellant-the Coal 
Mines Provident Fund Commissioner-without a notice under section 
H 
80 C.P .C. The objection in this behalf was repelled by the trial court 
l 
v 
I 
P.F. COMMR. v. R.C. JHA [FATHIMA BEEVI, J.) 
183 
and the High Court holding that the Coal Mines Provident Fund Com-
A 
. missioner is not a public officer. According to the appellant the Com-
missioner is a public officer within the meaning of the term occurring 
in section 80 of the C.P .C., and, therefore, the suit is incompetent. 
The term 'public officer' is defined in section 2(17) of the Code 
of Civil Procedure. Public Officer means a person falling under any of 
B 
the descriptions in clauses (a) to {h). It is contended

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.