Case: State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr Vs. Audh Narain Singh And Anr

1. Audh Narain Singh - hereinafter called Singh - was appointed in 1949 a Tahvildar in the District of Azamgarh in the State of U. P. and worked in the Cash Department of the Government treasury of that District. The appointment of Singh was made by Dhanpat Singh Tandon, Government Treasurer, with the approval of the District Magistrate. By order dated April 20, 1956, Singh who was then working as a Tahvildar in the Sub-treasury at tahsil Lalganj in the District of Azamgarh was informed that he was under instructions from the Collector removed from service. Against the order of removal, Singh preferred an appeal to the Collector but the same was rejected, and a representation made to the Commissioner of, the Banaras Division was unsuccessful. Singh then preferred a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of removal passed against him and for a writ of mandamus or an order directing the Collector of Azamgarh and the State of Uttar Pradesh, Dhanpat Singh Tandon, Government Treasurer, and the Commissioner of Banaras Division to treat him as a Tahvildar in the sub-treasury at Lalganj in the District of Azmgarh Singh claimed that he was a member of the civil service of the State of Uttar Pradesh or held a civil post under the State, and 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. Mehrotra, J., who heard the petition held that the Government Treasurer being an employee of the State, a Tahvildar employed by the Government Treasurer to carry out the work, entrusted by the State, subject to the control of the State Government, was an employee of the State Government, and the impugned order of removal was invalid because Singh was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him.2. The order of Mehrotra, J., was confirmed in appeal by the High Court of Allahabad. In the view of the High Court, no direct relationship of master and servant between Singh and the State was established because Singh was appointed by the Treasurer, but the Treasurer having authority to employ him in order to carry out the work of the State, Singh was as much under the control of the state as he was under the control of the Treasurer and therefore he could claim to, hold a civil post under the State and to have the benefit of Art. 311 of the Constitution. Against the order passed by the High Court, this appeal is preferred with Special leave.

Reasoning: 7. It is therefore clear from the record that Tahvildars were appointed to perform the duties of cashiers in Government Treasuries. Their appointment was made by the Government Treasurer with the approval of the District Collector, but it was made for performance of public duties, and remuneration was paid to them by the State directly. Tahvildars were liable to be transferred under orders of the Collector and to be suspended or removed from service under his orders. An instance already, referred to shows that a Tahvildar who had been suspended by the Treasurer was ordered to be reinstated by the Collector. It is from these circumstances that the relationship between the Government of Uttar Pradesh and Tahvildars has to be ascertained.8. Whether in a given case the relationship of master and servant exists is a question of fact, which must be determined on a consideration of all material and relevant circumstances having a bearing on that question. In general selection by the employer, coupled with payment by him of remuneration or wages, the right to control the method of work, and a power to suspend or remove from employment are indicative of the relation of master and servant. But co-existence of all these indicia is not predicated in every case to make the relation one of master and servant. In special classes of employment a contract of service may exist, even in the absence of one or more of these indicia. But ordinary 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 of some work but also the power to direct the manner in which the work is to be done. If the employer has the power, prima facie, the relation is that of master and servant.The Government Treasurer is a civil servant of the State holding a specific post, and he is authorised by the terms of his employment to employ Tahvildars to assist him in discharging his duties. Payment of remuneration to the Tahvildars is for services rendered in the "cashier 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. Employment of Tahvildars being for the purpose of carrying out the work of the State, even though a degree of control is exercised by the Government Treasurer and the appointment is in the first instance made by the Treasurer subject to the approval of the District Officers, it must be held that the Tahvildar is entitled to the protection of Art. 311 of the Constitution.The order removing Singh from service was made at the instance of the Collector, and did not conform to the requirements of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution and was on that account invalid.We therefore agree with the High Court, that the impugned order must be declared invalid.