STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. versus AUDH NARAIN SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [1964] 7 S.C.R. 89 · Decided: 09-03-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

7 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
S!J 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. 
v. 
AUDH NARAIN SINGH AND ANR. 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, c. J., K. N. WANCHOO, J. c. SHAH, 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND S. M. S!KRI, JJ.J 
Government Servant-Relationship of master and servant-
Tahvildars whether Government Sewants-Whether provisioas 
of Art. 311 (2) applicable' to them-Constitution of India 
Art. 311(2). 
The respondent was appointed 'in 1949 a Tahvildar in the 
District of Azamgarh in the State of Uttar Pradesh and he work-
ed in the Cash Department of the Government Treasury of that 
District. His appointment was made by Government Treasurer 
with the approval of Collector of the District. In 1956, he was 
removed from service under instructions from the Collector. He 
filed a writ petition in the High Court in which he challenged 
the legality of the order removing him from service on tbe 
ground that he was a member of the civil service of the State 
of Uttar Pradesh or held a civil post under the State and hence 
was not liable to be removed from service .. without being 
afforded a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against 
the action proposed to be taken in regard to him under Art. 
311 (2) of the Constitution. The High Court held that the res-
pondent was an employee of the State Government and as the 
provisions of Art. 
311 (2) had not been observed, the order 
terminating his services was illegal. The appellant has come 
to this Court by special leave. 
The only question raised before this 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. Dismissing the appeal, 
Held: The respondent was a civil servant of the State of 
Uttar Pradesh and as the requirements of Art. 311 (2) were not 
conformed to, the order terminating his services was, invalid. 
The Government Treasurer is a civil servant of the State 
holding a specific post and he is authorised by the ter1J1s of his 
employment to employ Tahvildars to assist him in discharging 
his duties. Payment of r,emuneraiion to Tahvildars is for services 
rendered in the Cash Department of the District Treasury of the 
State. The Tahvildars receive their remuneration directly from 
the State and are subject to the control of the District Officers in 
the matter of transfer, removal and disciplinary action. Employ-
ment of Tahvildars being for the purpose of carrying out the 
work of the Stafe, even though a degree of control is exercised 
by the Government Treasurer and the appointment is in the 
first in,sta!'ce made by the Treasurer subject to the approval of 
the D:str1ct Officers, the Tahviidar is entitled to the protec-
tion of Art. 311. 
Whether in a given case, the relationship of master and ser-
vant exists is a question of fact which must be determined on 
a cons!deration of all m.aterial and relevant circumstances having 
a bearing ~n that question. In. general, selection by the employer, 
coupled with payment by him of remuneration or wages, the 
19U 
90 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
HJ64] 
1964 
right to control the method of work and a power to susp€nd or 
St 
1 Utt 
remove from employment are indicative of the relation of master 
l'rad~~eh 
0and A:;. 
and servant. However, co-existence of all these indicia is not 
v. 
predicted in every case to make the relation one of master and 
.Audh Narain Singh. servant. In special classes of employment, the contract of service 
and Anr. 
·may exist, even in the absence of one or more of these indicia. 
Sloli, J. 
But ordinarily, the right of an employer to control the method 
of doing the work and the power of superintendence and control 
may be treated as strongly indicative of the relation of master 
and servant, for that relation imports the power not only to 
direct the doing cf some work, but also to direct the manner in 
which work is to be done. If the employer has such power. prima 
fade, the relation is one of master and servant. 
Shivana.ndan Sharma v. The Punjab National Bank Ltd. 
[1955] l S.C.R. 1427, Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State 
of Saurashtra [1957] S.C.R. 152 and Mfs Piyare Lal Adiswar Lal 
v. Commissioner of Income·tax, Delhi (1960] 3 S.C.R. 669, refer-
red to. 
ClVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 120 of 
1963. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decrec-
dated December 13, 1960, of the Allahabad Hi11h Court in 
Special Appeal No. 204 of 1957. 
H. N

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