STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. versus SHRI KANAK CHANDRA DUTTA

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 679 · Decided: 03-10-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
II 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. 
v. 
SHRI KANAK'. CHANDRA DUTIA 
October 3, 1966 
[K. SUBBA RAO, C. J., M. HIDAYATULLAH, S. M. S!KRI, 
R. S. BACHAWAT AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.J 
Constitution of India, 1950, Ar!. 311(2)-Civil post-Mauzadar in 
Assam Valley, if holder of civil post entitled to protection of Article. 
The respondent, who was a Mauzadar in the Assam Valley, was dis-
missed from office without complying with the provisions of Art. 311(2) 
of the Constitution. His writ petition to the High Court w;i.s allowed 
on the ground that he held a civil post under the State of Assam and was 
entitled to the protection of the Article. 
In appeal by the State, 
HELD : In the light of the system of recruitment, employment and 
functions, a Mauzadar is a servant and the bolder of a civil pest, un4er 
the State, entitled to the protection of the Article. 
A civil post means a post not connected with the defence and outside 
the regular civil services. It is an office or a position to which duties in 
connection with the affairs of the State are attached. It is under the ad-
ministrative control of the 
State but 
need 
not necessarily carry 
0 a 
definite rate of pay" and may involve only part-time employment. 
A 
person holding the post is a person serving or employed under the State. 
The existence of the relationship of master and servant between the State 
and a person holding a post under it, is indicated by the State's right to 
select and aypoint the holder of the post, its right to suspend and dismiss 
him., its right to control the manner and method of his doing the work 
and the payment by it of his wages or remuneration. Such a relation-
ship may be established by the presence of all or some of these indicia 
in conjunction with other circumstances, and its existence is a question 
of fact in each case. 
[682 G, H; 683 A, B, HJ 
Under the Mauzadari system of collecting revenue, prevailing in the 
Assam Valley, the revenue charge of a Mauza and the responsibility for 
the whole revenue of it, in the first instance, 
rest with the Mauzadar. 
Originally he may have been a revenue farmer and an independent con-
tractor but under the existing system, he is a subordinate public servant 
working under the supervision and control of the Deputy Commissioner:. 
He is · a Revenue Officer and ex--0fficio Assistant Settlement Officer exer• 
cisin~ delegated powers of Government, and the State has the. power and 
the nght to select and appoint him and the power to suspend and 'dismiss 
him. Though he may not be a whole-time employee and receives by way 
of remuneration a commission on his collections and sometimes a saiarv 
he holds an office on the revenue side of the administration to which 
specific and onerous duties in connection with the affairs of the State are 
attached. 
[683 E-G] 
Observations in V.mkata Swamy v. Superintendent of Post Of/ica 
A.I.R. 19S7 Orissa 112, that a part-time employee cannot be the holder 
of a civil p<>st disapproved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 254 of 
1964. 
679 
Ml6SupC.l./66-!5 
680 
SUPUMB COURT UPORTS 
(1967] I S.C.R. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
A 
August 13, 1963 of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Civil 
Rule No. 387 of 1962. 
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General and Naunit Lal, for the appellant. 
K. R. Chaudhuri, for. the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
Bacbawat, J. This appeal raises the question whether a Mau-
zadar in the Assam Valley holds a civil post under the State of 
Assam, and is entitled to the protection of Art. 311 (2) of the Cons-
titution. On March 4, 1939, respondent, Kanak Chandra Dutta, 
was appointed Mauzadar of Mancotta Mouza in the Dibrugarh 
Sub-division of Lakhimpur District. His father also before his 
death was the Mauzadar of Mancotta Mouza for about 52 years 
from 1885 to 1938. Under the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, 
Lakhimpur, the respondent was suspended on August 22, 1949 
and was dismissed from the office of the Mauzadar on July 4, 1962. 
It is common case that this dismissal from office was made without 
complying with the provisions of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. 
On a writ petition filed by the respondent, the Assam High Court 
quashed the order of dismissal. The High Court held that the res-
pondent held a civil post under the State of Assam, and was entitled 
to the protection of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. The correct-
ness of this fi

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