Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)State Of Assam & Ors vs Shri Kanak Chandra Dutta on 3 October, 1966
"There is no formal definition of 'post' and
'civil post'. The sense in which they are
used in the Services Chapter of Part XIV of
the Constitution is indicated by their
context and settinga civil post means a
post not connected with defence outside
the regular services. A post is a service or
employment. A person holding a post under
a State is a person serving or employed
under the State There is a relationship of
master and servant between the State and
a person holding a post under it. The
existence of this relationship is indicated by
the State's right to select and appoint the
holder of the post, its right to suspend and
dismiss him, its right to control the manner
and method of his doing the work and the
payment of his wages or remuneration. A
relationship of master and servant may be
established by the presence of all or some
of these indicia, in conjunction with other
circumstances and it is a question of fact in
each case whether there is a relation
between the State and the alleged holder
of the post." [Para 9, AIR]
In State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra it was also
held that "a post is an employment but every
employment is not a post."
Deokinandan Prasad vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 4 May, 1971
High Court then referred to another decision by a
Constitution bench of this Court in Deokinandan Prasad
v. State of Bihar AIR 1971 SC 1409. This is a case in
which a Civil servant was removed from service and
this Court ruled that since an opportunity of hearing
was not given before passing the Order, the same was
held to be violative of Article 311.
Uptron India Limited vs Shammi Bhan & Anr on 6 February, 1998
Another case referred
to by the High Court is Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi
Bhan (1998) 6 SCC 538. Here also the issue was
related to the violation of Article 311.
S. L. Agarwal vs General Manager, Hindustan Steel Ltd on 19 December, 1969
While dealing with the
termination of an employee, another Constitution
Bench of this Court looked into the applicability of
Article 311 in S. L Agarwal v. General Manager,
Hindustan Steel Ltd. (1970) 1 SCC 177. Here this
Court held that job in Hindustan Steel is not a 'civil
post' so as to claim the protection of Article 311.
Another issue noted by the Court in Hindustan Steel is
nature of independent existence of Hindustan Steel
Company. Considering this and other aspects it is
ruled that Hindustan Steel Company is not a State of
the purpose of Article 311.
Syndicate Bank vs General Secretary Syndicate Bank Staff ... on 25 April, 2000
The last case relied upon by the High Court is
Syndicate Bank v. Gen. Sec., Syndicate Bank Staff
Association (2000) 5 SCC 65. Here this Court allowing
the appeal in favor of the appellant bank and holds
that:
Jai Shanker vs Satate Of Rajasthan on 16 September, 1965
While deciding the matter High Court has
adverted to the decision in Jai Shanker v. State of
Rajasthan AIR 1966 SC 492, wherein a state
government employee was discharged from service
due to his unauthorized leave. Here the order of
termination was passed without hearing him. In this
context, quashing the Order of discharge, this Court
held that:
Section 4 in The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh Act, 1966 [Entire Act]
The State Of Assam And Ors. vs Akshaya Kumar Deb on 2 May, 1975
In State of Assam v. Akshaya Kumar AIR 1976
SC 37 while upholding the High Court order of
quashing the unilateral removal of a Government
Servant, this Court opined that:
1