Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF U.P.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
U.P. GOVERNMENT COUNSEL (CRL.) WELFARE ASSOCIATION
DATE OF JUDGMENT18/10/1994
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
SEN, S.C. (J)
CITATION:
1995 AIR 575 1995 SCC Supl. (1) 15
JT 1995 (2) 490 1994 SCALE (4)607
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
In this appeal, the only question is whether the High Court
was justified in staying the operation of the Uttar Pradesh
Government Litigation (Engagement of Counsel) Ordinance,
1991 (U.P. Ordinance No. 2 of 1991). It would appear that
consequent to the decision of the Division Bench of the
Allahabad High Court allowing CMWP No. 20182 of 1990 dated
12-11-1990, declaring that the Government had no power to
dispense with the services of Standing Counsel appearing for
the Government of Uttar Pradesh in the High Court at
Allahabad as well as Lucknow Benches, the Governor issued
the aforesaid Ordinance regulating the assignment of work of
the government counsel and the payment of their fee for the
work done by the counsel. The judgment of the Division
Bench, which is the foundation for the Ordinance was
questioned by the Government in this Court in State of U.P.
v. U.P. State Law Officers’ Assn.1 This Court after
considering the gamut of the controversy held that the law
officers appointed by the Government to look after the work
of the Government was only professional service as legal
assistants and the service rendered by the counsel is only a
service-oriented professional service. Therefore, they are
not employees of the Government. The Government is entitled
to regulate its work by prescribing the conditions subject
to which the work of the Government could be entrusted to
and be discharged by the counsel. It is one of trust and
confidence. So long as the trust and confidence remain and
maintained by the
+ From the Judgment and Order dated 17-1-1991 of the
Allahabad High Court in W. No. Nil of
1991
1 (1994) 2 SCC 204: 1994 SCC (L&S) 650: (1994) 26 ATC 906
16
counsel, the Government would engage the counsel. The
Government have the liberty to relieve a counsel for the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
reason that they do not have confidence in the counsel.
Since this Court had set aside the judgment of the Division
Bench, obviously the respondent has lost interest in the
matter and, therefore, none is appearing in the matter.
This Court suspended the operation of the order of the
Division Bench dated 17-1-1991 by order dated 8-2-1991 and
made the interim suspension absolute. Under these
circumstances, this appeal is allowed. The order dated 8-2-
1991 is made final. We do not propose to express any
opinion on merits of the Ordinance since it is a matter to
be gone into by the High Court. The appeal is accordingly
allowed. No costs.
17