State Of U.P.Throu.Prin.Secy.Sugar Lucknow And Ors. vs. Vashistha Muni Mishra

Held

The Court held that the respondent could not be treated as a Government employee. The appointment of the respondent was made under the Special Sugar Fund, and the appointment and regularization orders were issued by the Cane Commissioner in his capacity as a member of the Special Sugar Fund Committee, not as an Appointing Authority under the Drivers Service Rules, 1984. There was no sanctioned post of a driver under the Special Sugar Fund, and the respondent was appointed on daily wages, with his salary paid from the fund. The Court found that the respondent had always treated himself as an employee of the Special Sugar Fund. The subsequent absorption of the respondent and others into Cane Development Councils following the repeal of the Special Sugar Fund due to GST enactment further supported this conclusion. The Court noted that the respondent had challenged his absorption order but later withdrew his petition without adjudication on his employee status. The Court concluded that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that an appointment order by the Cane Commissioner automatically conferred government servant status without adherence to the prescribed rules, specifically the Drivers Service Rules, 1984, which were admittedly not followed. Therefore, the intra-court appeal was allowed, and the impugned order of the learned Single Judge was set aside, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

Facts

The State of U.P. appealed a High Court judgment that treated the respondent, Vashishta Muni Mishra, as a government servant appointed in the office of the Cane Commissioner with consequential service benefits. The State argued that the respondent was appointed as a driver under the Special Sugar Fund (Shakkar Vishesh Nidhi), initially on daily wages, with contributions deducted for the Contributory Provident Fund. The respondent's appointment was in 1990, and he was paid from the Special Sugar Fund. The State contended that drivers were governed by the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Department Drivers Service Rules, 1984, and the respondent's appointment did not comply with these rules. Furthermore, the State highlighted that with the enactment of the GST Act in 2017, the Special Sugar Fund was repealed, and employees were absorbed into Cane Development Councils, a fact the respondent accepted by seeking absorption and later withdrawing a petition challenging it.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent, Vashishta Muni Mishra, can be treated as a Government Servant having been appointed in the office of the Cane Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, with consequential service benefits, pursuant to the impugned order dated 01.05.2019 passed in W.P. No. 4838 (SS) of 2000? (Question of law) Contentions: Petitioner (State of U.P.): The respondent was appointed under the Special Sugar Fund, not the Cane Commissioner's office. His appointment as a driver was governed by the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Department Drivers Service Rules, 1984, which were not followed. His salary was paid from the Special Sugar Fund, and his contributions were to the Contributory Provident Fund, not the General Provident Fund. Subsequent absorption into Cane Development Councils after the repeal of the Special Sugar Fund due to GST enactment further indicated his status as a Special Sugar Fund employee. Reliance was placed on the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Department Drivers Service Rules, 1984. Respondent (Vashishta Muni Mishra): The respondent argued that his appointment order was issued by the Cane Commissioner, and since no driver post was sanctioned under the Special Sugar Fund, his appointment should be considered within the Sugar Cane Department of the State of U.P. He contended that the issuance of an appointment order by the Cane Commissioner conferred the status of a government servant.