Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)Section 25 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P vs U.P. State Law Officers Assn on 25 January, 1993
In the case of State of U. P. v. U. P. State Law Officers Association (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the Law Officers appointed by the Government to look after the work of the Government was only professional service as legal assistant and the service rendered by the counsel is only a service oriented professional service. 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has considered the appointment of lawyers by the Government and their subsequent removal from three different angles viz. The nature of the legal profession, the interest of the public and the modes of the appointment and removal. Paragraphs 13 to 19 of the resorts are reproduced below (para 6 of AIR) :
Bhagwan Dass And Others vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 31 July, 1987
Their appointment cannot be made time bound. According to Sri Sita Ram Singh (the petitioner), he and other similarly situated Public Prosecutors/Additional Public Prosecutors working on the Criminal side for and on behalf of the State Government are entitled for the same salary/emoluments and allowances which are payable to the Assistant Public Prosecutors appointed in the Court of Magistrates and Government employees and are entitled to continue till the age of superannuation. Thus, the order terminating his engagement is illegal and liable to be quashed. Sri Sita Ram Singh, Advocate (petitioner) on the question of equal pay for equal work has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Das v. State of Haryana (1987) 4 SCC 634 : (AIR 1987 SC 2049).
Harpal Singh Chauhan And Ors. Etc vs State Of U.P on 15 June, 1993
17. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, to the present ease, we are of the view that by no stretch of imagination the petitioners can be said to be the Government employee's. Their engagement is only professional and their services can be terminated at any point of time.
1