# Rajendera Deva v. Addl. Labour Commissioner

- **Citation:** (1999) 2 ILRA 163
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendera-deva-v-addl-labour-commissioner-39196
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
163
section 7 of the Act. In the instant case the employer failed to
determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in writing to the
petitioner and also to the controlling authority specifying the amount
of gratuity so determined, as visualised by sub-section (2) of section
7 of the Act. It further failed to arrange the payment of gratuity with
in thirty days from the date it become payable to the petitioner. The
deposit of the amount with the appellate authority after the order
passed by the Controlling Authority would not absolve the employer
of its liability to pay interest as visualised by sub-section (3-A) of
section 7 of the Act. The petitioner is therefore entitled to get interest
till the date of actual payment of gratuity to him. He is also entitled
to cost quantified at R.2,000/-

In the result, therefore the petitioner succeeds and is allowed
with cost quantified at Rs.2,000/-. The appellate order dated
30.12.1995 is quashed. The petition is held entitled to interest at the
prescribed rate till the date of actual payment.

Petition Allowed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0.$7-8 -
+( +21·%/( 0.$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 6/6$5$) -
7+( +21·%/( 6/6$5$) -

&,9,/ 0,6& :5,7 3(7,7,21 12 2)
-RKUL 0DO
« 3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQRWKHUV
« 5HVSRQGHQW

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
 6UL :+ .KDQ
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
 6&

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD$FW JXLGHOLQHV LV VXHG IRU DSSRLQWPHQWV
RI WKH '*& $GGO '*& DQG SHQDO ODZ\HUV ±WKH 'LVWULFW -XGJH
UHFRPPHQGHG LQ IDYRXU RI WKH SHWLWLRQHU EXW QR UHDVRQ ZDV
DVVLJQHG IRU UHMHFWLQJ WKH UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ RI WKH 'LVWULFW -XGJH
WKH SHWLWLRQHU¶V WHUP DV '*& FULPLQDO ZDV
GLUHFWHG WR EH
UHQHZHG IRUWKZLWK
Case Law discussed-
AIR 1991 SC-53
1999
------
Rajendera
Deva
 Vs.
Addl. Labour
Commissioner
(Account) &
another
------
S.R.Singh, J.
1998
------
December, 11
THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
164
By the Court

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing
counsel. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned
order dated 18.9.98 (Annexure-8 the writ petition ) and for the
renewal of his term as DGC(Criminal) in district Meerut.

In this case on 26.10.98 learned standing counsel was granted
one month's time to file a counter affidavit, but no counter affidavit
has been filed so far . Hence we are treating the allegation in this
petition to be correct.

The petitioner has stated that he was selected and placed in the
panel of Panel Lawyer (Criminal) on 6.12.78 and remained in the
panel for 5 years and thereafter by order dated 7.1.83 the respondent
no.1 the State of U.P. appointed the petitioner as Additional DGC
(Criminal) for one year. A true copy of the order dated 7.1.83 has
been annexed as Annexure-1 to the petition. The petitioner's term
was regularly renewed from time . Subsequently on superannuation
of one Kripal Singh DGC (Criminal ) Meerut on 1.7.1995 by order
of respondent no.2 dated 30.6.95 the petitioner was handed over the
charge of DGC (Criminal) through letter dated 3.7.95 and the
petitioner started functioning as DGC( Criminal) a true copy of the
order dated 3.7.95 has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the petition.
Thereafter the post of DGC (Criminal) Meerut was duly notified and
advertised and the applications were invited A true copy of the
notification dated 8.7.96 has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the
petition After following the procedure prescribed in the L.R. manual
and after obtaining the no.1 selected and appointed the petitioner as
DGC (Criminal) vide order dated 17.9.97 true copy of which has
been annexed as annexure-4 to the petition.

The petitioner has since been functioning as DGC (Criminal)
He prayed for renewal for his term which was expiring on 14.9.1998
A true copy of the letter dated 14.9.1998 is annexed as Annexure-6
to the petition. However, his term has not been extended although the
District Judge, Meerut and the District Magistrate Meerut both made
favourable reports and recommended the petitioner's appointment as
DGC (Criminal) In paragraph 13 of the petition it has been alleged
that the petitioner has been working satisfactorily and with
unblemished record as District government Counsel and hence his
term should be renewed.

1998
------
Johri Mal
 Vs.
State of U.P.
& another
------
M. Katju, J.
S.L. Saraf, J.
2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
165

Since this matter is of some importance we are dealing with it
at some length. There was a time when irrespective of political
affiliations appointments of Government counsels were made in the
High Court and District Courts purely on merit. In this Court itself
appointment as a Government Counsel was usually regarded as a
stepping stone to high offices. Almost all the persons who were
appointed about 20 or 30 yeas ago as Government Counsel in the
High Court were elevated as Judge of this Court or occupied other
high posts like Advocate General, Law Minister etc. This was
because such appointments were made on the basis of competence
and not caste creed religion or political affiliation. Subsequently,
however, the post of government Counsel has steadily been
politicalised and the result has been that very often the Court is not
assisted properly and very often-incompetent persons are appointed
as Government Counsel because of their political affiliation, caste or
other extraneous consideration. This Court and the District court
requires proper assistance from the Government Counsels. The
interest of the State also suffers by appointing incompetent persons.

Since Government have been changing very frequently in
recent years in U.P. what has been happening is that whenever a new
government comes many of the Government Counsels appointed by
the previous government are sacked and in their places new persons
are appointed not on merit but on the basis of caste, creed or political
affiliations, which is subversive of the administration of justice. The
Court requires highly meritorious Government Counsel to dispense
justice properly.

In our opinion the time has now come when the post of
Government Counsel should be given purely on merit irrespective of
political affiliation, caste,Creed or religion. The post of Government
Counsel is a responsible post, and it cannot be distributed as leaves
of office on extraneous considerations .

In the present case the recommendation has been made in the
petitioner's favour by the District Judge and it has also been
recommended by the District Magistrate. We see no reason why the
recommendation of the District Judge should be refused. In our
opinion for the appointment of the post of DGC, Addl. DGC or Panel
Lawyers, ordinarily the recommendation of the District Judge must
be accepted by the Government because the District Judge is the
senior most Judicial Officer in the district and he is expected to know
about the lawyers in the court. No doubt the District Magistrate has
1998
------
Johri Mal
 Vs.
State of U.P.
& another
------
M. Katju, J.
S.L. Saraf, J.
THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
166
also
to
be
consulted
but
ordinarily
the
District
Judges
recommendation must carry the greatest weight. If the Government
is not agreeable to the recommendation of the District Judge then
strong, cogent reasons must be assigned by the Government in
writing irrespective of political affiliation, caste creed or religion or
on any other extraneous consideration.

In the present case the District Judge has recommended in
favour of the petitioner and no good or cogent reason has been
assigned for rejecting the recommendation of the District Judge.
Hence we direct the petitioner's term as OGC (Criminal) to be
renewed forthwith by the State Government.

The Supreme Court has observed in Special Reference No.1 of
1998 that the Chief Justice of India means not the Chief Justice of
India alone but in consultation with his four senior most colleagues.
No doubt this judgement was given in the context of appointments of
Judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts, but in our opinion he
spirit of the judgement is applicable to present case also since the
intention was to keep the administration of justice away from
political considerations. Hence in our opinion the District Judge
should not make the recommendation alone but in consultation with
the two senior most Judicial Officers in the District Court and also
the CJM in the case of recommendations for appointments in the
criminal side, and the senior most Civil Judge for appointments of
the civil side and also the District Magistrate . In other words the
recommendation shall be by a collegiunm headed by the District
Judge and consisting of the above mentioned five members
(consisting of four judicial officers and the District Magistrate ). If
two members disapprove the name no recommendation will be
made. No name will be recommended if the District Judge
disapproves . This is our opinion, will be in accordance with the
norms laid down in the L.R.Mannual . Such a recommendation will
ordinarily be treated as binding on the Government unless for some
strong, cogent reasons to be recorded in writing if the Government
disagrees. We again make it clear that the recommendation must be
made purely on merit and competence ignoring caste, creed, religion
or political affiliation.

In Shrilekha Vidyarthi vs. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1991 S.C.537
the Supreme Court held that Article 14 of the Constitution applies to
appointment of Government Counsels in district courts. In our
1998
------
Johri Mal
 Vs.
State of U.P.
& another
------
M. Katju, J.
S.L. Saraf, J.
2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
167
opinion the direction issued above will ensure non- arbitrariness in
such appointments.

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 18.9.98 is
quashed. The petition is allowed.

Petition Allowed.

25,*,1$
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7('$//$+$%$'
'$7('$//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( '. 6(7+ -
7+( +21·%/( '. 6(7+ -

:5,7 3(7,7,21 12 2)
3UL\DQND 6LQJK
« 3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQRWKHU
« 5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWRQHU
 6KUL $VKRN .XPDU 6LQJK
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW
 6&

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH $SSRLQWPHQWD SHUVRQ GRHV QRW
DFTXLUH DQ\ ULJKW WR EH DSSRLQWHG RQ DFFRXQW RI DFTXLVLWLRQ RI WKH
UHTXLVLWH TXDOLILFDWLRQ ,W GRHV QRW FRQIHU DQ\ OHJDO ULJKW WR EH
HQIRUFHG WKURXJK ZULW SHWLWLRQ WR JHW DQ DSSRLQWPHQW RQO\ RQ WKH
EDVLV RI DFTXLVLWLRQ RI HOLJLELOLW\ RU TXDOLILFDWLRQ

By the Court

The petitioner by means of this writ petition prays for a
mandamus directing the respondents to give appointment to the
petitioner because the petitioner is eligible and qualified for being
appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Primary School, on account
of her acquisition of B.T.C. Degree.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that since the petitioner had acquired requisite qualification,
therefore, she is eligible for being appointed as Assistant Teacher
and had accordingly made an application before the appropriate
1999
------
January, 6