Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Raja Bahadur K. C. Deo Bhanj vs Raghunath Misra And Others on 18 December, 1958

Kanailal Majhi And Ors. vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 18 May, 1994

Indeed, this aspects would be clear, if we bear in mind, the distinction between 'serving under the Government' and 'in the service of the Government' as explained by the Supreme Court in the case reported in Raja Bahadur K.C. Deo Bhanj v. Raghunath Misra where for being in the service of the Government, two essentials of the relationship of the master and servant were held to be necessary. The servant must be under the duty of rendering personal service to the master or to others in his behalf and the master must have a right to control the servant's work, either personally or by another servant or agent. Neither of these two elements would be present in the instant case-in any event, the element of control envisaged therein, would not be present-the Commissioner Qua-Commissioner cannot be held to' be in the service of the Government. The Commissioner also cannot be said to be in the pay of the Government, because as provided in Section 20 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, his salary is to be paid out of the Municipal Fund, which under Section 115 of the said Act is made up, of monies realised or realisable under the said Act (other than the fines levied by Magistrates) and all monies other wise received by the Corporation. This fund is certainly not any part of the Governmeint or State Exchequer and cannot be said to be belonging to the State."
Calcutta High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ranchhodbai Deasibhai Patel vs Collector Of Panchamahals And Anr. on 21 April, 1966

The same test was applied in K.C. Deo Bhanj v. Raghunath Misra, AIR 1959 SC 589, for interpreting the expression "in the service of the Government:" used in sub-section (7) of S. 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. However that case is not useful for the purpose of determining the question in hand for more than one reason. In the first instance, the expression which their Lordships were called upon to construe was the expression "in the service of a Government" and not "hold civil post under a State". It will be important to notice that the expression "in the service of a Government" is also different from the expression used to designate the first category of persons, viz., the membership of the service of the Union or a State, mentioned in Art. 311.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gowardhandas Rathi vs Corporation Of Calcutta And Anr. on 25 June, 1970

Indeed, this aspect would be clear, if we bear in mind the distinction between "serving under the Government" and "in the service of the Government", as explained by the Supreme Court in the case, reported in Raja Bahadur K. C. Deo Bhanj v. Raghunath Misra, (1959) 2 SCA 168 = (AIR 1951 SC 589), where, for being in the service of the Government, two essentials of the relationship of the master and servant were held to be necessary. The servant must be under the duty of rendering personal service to the master or to others in his behalf and the master must have a right to control the servant's work, cither personally or by another servant or agent. Neither of these two elements would be present in the instant case - in any event, the element of control, envisaged therein, would not be present -- the Commissioner qua Commissioner cannot be held to be in the service of the Government. The Commissioner also cannot be said to be in the pay of the Government, because as provided in Section 20 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, his salary is to be paid out of the Municipal Fund, which under Section 115 of the said Act, is made up of monies realised or realisable under the said Act (other than the fines levied by Magistrates) and, all monies otherwise received by the Corporation, This fund is certainly not any part of the Government or State Exchequer and cannot be said to be belonging to the State.
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Barada Kanta Adhikary vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 21 August, 1962

7. There have been many debates as to what is "civil post" under a State. Some observations not on this ground but on the general aspect of this question will be found in the decision of the Supreme Court on the Representation of the People Act, 1951 in K.C. Deo Bhanj v. Raghunath Misra, and 595. The Courts' search for tests to define what is a civil post under the State has been so far exploratory without being decisive. It has been said that the real test far determining whether a person holds a civil post under the State is not whether he receives payment out of the State funds but whether the post Is subject to and is held under the control of the State and whether the actual functions performed by Mm are those of the State.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Guru Gobinda Basu vs Sankari Prosad Ghosal And Ors. on 3 January, 1963

Incidentally, it may be noted that the Orissa case went up to the supreme Court and is reported in K. C. Deo Bhanj v. Raghunath Misra, . The Supreme Court did not decide whether the proceedings were civil proceedings but held that "this was just the kind of case where the court would have granted special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution, because it raised a point of law of considerable public Importance."
Calcutta High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 49 - G K Mitter - Full Document

Sm. Ena Ghosh vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 23 February, 1962

Next we come to the case of K.C. Deo Bhanj v. Raghunath Misra, . In that case, a question arose as to whether a sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat constituted under the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act, 1948 was a person in the service of the Government of the State of Orissa. Under the said Act, the State Government, District Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate have been given substantial powers of control and supervision over the Gram Panchayats and its Sarpanch, including the power of removal for negligence;, inefficiency and misbehaviour. Imam, J. said as follows :
Calcutta High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Abdul Rehman vs State Of Kerala And Anr. on 20 August, 1999

10. Though in the above decision the question arose before the. Supreme Court was whether a Sarpanch of a Grama Panchayat constituted under the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act is exercising functions as in service of the Government, the above dictum laid down by the Supreme Court is applicable to the facts of this case also. It is also held by the Supreme Court that though the Sarpanch of a Grama Panchayat constituted under the Orissa Gram panchayats Act exercised governmental duties he cannot be regarded as a person in the service of the Government for the purpose of Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Chandrashekhar Singh vs Sarjoo Prasad Singh And Anr. on 21 December, 1959

But this argument could not be pursued when the attention of the learned advocate for the appellant was drawn to the Supreme Court decision in K. C. Deo Bhanj v. Raghunath Misra, AIR 1959 SC 589, where the Orissa decision has been reversed on the question as to whether Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat belongs to the class of officers enumerated in Clause (F) of Sub-section (7) of Section 123. It has been also held by the Supreme Court at page 595:
Patna High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 4 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

Km. Manju And Anr. vs State on 10 September, 1971

This passage dealt with the well known distinction between a servant and an independent contractor who undertakes the performance of a particular piece of work but is free to choose his own means of executing that work. A servant, on the other hand, has to serve in accordance with the requirements laid down by the master. Applying this test, their Lordships pointed out that the relation between the State Government and the Gram Panchayat was such that, although the State Government exercised a control and supervision over the functions of the Gram Panchayat and its Surpanch, yet, neither the Gram Panchayat nor its Surpanch could be said to be in the service of the Government. Hence, it was held that the Surpanch of the Gram Panchayat could not be held to be a person in the service of the Government.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 2 - M H Beg - Full Document
1   2 3 Next