State of Punjab vs Gurdarshan Singh Grewal

The respondent Mr. Gurdarshan Singh Grewal, B.A., L.L.B., a practising advocate of Punjab and Haryana High Court was appointed by Order of the Governor on March 26, 1968 as Trustee cum-Treasurerrator General and Official Trustees-Treasurer Charitable Endowments subject to his being paid a salary of Rs. 300/ - as a part-time Administrator General and Official Trustee and Rs. 450/- as part-time Treasurer Charitable Endowments. The office of the Administrator General- Official Trustee and Treasurer Charitable Endowments have been set up under Administrator General's Act, 1963, Official Trustees' Act, 1913 and Charitable Endowments Act, 1890. It is stated in the Pay Commission's Report of 1967-68 of the State of Punjab that the official being appointed from time to time on contract basis, the Commission declined to prescribe any pay scales to that office. However, for the staff of that office pay scales have been prescribed. When the petitioner's appointment was terminated, he challenged by way of a writ petition and the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6991 of 1975 dated 9-2-1983 Reported in (1983) 1 SLR 570 : 1984 LIC 84 (P & H). held that the respondent was a Government servant and his termination violates Article 311 of the Constitution. Accordingly allowed the writ petition.On an appeal, it was confirmed thus this appeal by special leave under Article 136.

It is contended by the State that the respondent being an advocate he cannot be considered to be a Government servant, Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted to a part time appointment to the office of Administrator General etc. We find force in the contention. So long as the respondent continues to be an advocate he is entitled not only to practising the profession of the law but he can seek part-time appointment subject to permission by the State Bar Counsel. The exceptions are law officers of the State or Central or Corporate Sector as they are officers of the Court and are responsible to the Court. If one opts for full time Government service he/she should intimate to the Bar Counsel suspending practice. It is not the respondent's case that he suspended his practice. The Pay Commission's Report clearly indicates that the appointment from time to time is only on contract basis. In fact the Order of appointment clearly shows that it is terminable with one month's notice. There is no pay scale prescribed for the post. The statement as salary is misnomer and it would be an honorarium for the duty discharged of the duties of those offices. Obviously, the other Rules relating to the Government servants are not attracted to the person holding the part-time post of Administrator General etc. It is true that there may be permanent part-time Government office or post. That is not relevant to the facts. The character of the post and a person who holds the post are relevant. The contention that the respondent's failure to suspend practice may expose him to disciplinary conduct by the Bar Council too is not relevant. In these circumstances, the High Court is clearly illegal in holding that the respondent is a Government Servant and entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the writ petition stands dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.