9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether Kurk Amins appointed on commission basis by District Magistrates/Collectors in Uttar Pradesh for the realization of outstanding dues of cooperative societies can be considered employees of the State Government holding civil posts under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether Kurk Amins appointed on commission basis are entitled to the same pay scale as Kurk Amins appointed in the Revenue Department. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Status of Kurk Amins as Government Employees: The primary issue was whether Kurk Amins appointed on a commission basis by District Magistrates/Collectors in Uttar Pradesh for the realization of outstanding dues of cooperative societies can be treated as employees of the State Government holding civil posts under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Background and Arguments: The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Uttar Pradesh, framed a scheme on 8.5.1978 for the appointment of Kurk Amins to recover dues of cooperative societies as land revenue. Initially, these Kurk Amins were salaried, but due to insufficient recovery to cover their salaries, they were later asked to work on a commission basis. Those who agreed were retained, while others were terminated, leading to multiple writ applications challenging these terminations. The High Court had earlier ruled that Kurk Amins on salary basis were government servants holding civil posts, and this decision was not challenged by the State. The contention was whether Kurk Amins on commission basis could be treated similarly. Supreme Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court referred to several precedents, including the cases of *State of Assam & Ors. Vs. Shri Kanak Chandra Dutta* and *Superintendent of Post Offices vs. P.K. Rajamma*, which established that the relationship of master and servant, the nature of duties, and the control exercised by the State are crucial factors in determining whether a person holds a civil post. The Court noted that the High Court had considered all relevant factors, such as the appointing authority, the power to terminate, the nature of duties, and the control exercised by the State, and concluded that Kurk Amins on commission basis were indeed government servants holding civil posts. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with this finding. 2. Entitlement to Pay Scale: The second issue was whether Kurk Amins appointed on commission basis were entitled to the same pay scale as Kurk Amins in the Revenue Department. Background and Arguments: Following the High Court's decision that Kurk Amins on salary basis were government servants, Chandra Prakash Pandey and others sought a direction for the State to pay them the regular scale of pay applicable to Kurk Amins of the Revenue Department. The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, and the State's appeal was dismissed. Supreme Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that both sets of Kurk Amins (commission-based and salary-based) were appointed by the same authority, performed similar duties, and were subject to the same control and supervision. The Court emphasized that the High Court had thoroughly examined the facts and found that Kurk Amins on commission basis were performing the same public duties as their salaried counterparts, thereby justifying their entitlement to the same pay scale. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that Kurk Amins appointed on commission basis are government servants holding civil posts and are entitled to the same pay scale as Kurk Amins in the Revenue Department. The Court found no infirmity in the High Court's judgments and emphasized that the State had failed to challenge the factual findings effectively.
|
