Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.76 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 1 in Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 [Entire Act]
Article 191 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ashok Kumar Bhattacharyya vs Ajoy Biswas And Ors on 15 November, 1984
In Ashok Kumar Bhattacharyya v. Ajoy Biswas and
others10, a threeJudge Bench while dealing with the issue
whether the respondent No. 1 was disqualified for being
elected as a member of the House of People as he held an
office of profit under the Government of Tripura within the
meaning of Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution, for on the
10 (1985) 1 SCC 151
30
relevant date he was an Accountant incharge of the Agartala
Municipality. After referring to many an authority, the Court
ruled that for determination of the question whether a person
holds an office of profit under the Government, each case
must be measured and judged in the light of the relevant
provisions. The Court further opined:
“21. … Local Authority as such or any other
authority does not cease to become
independent entity separate from Government.
Whether in a particular case it is so or not
must depend upon the facts and circumstances
of the relevant provisions. To make in all cases
employees of Local Authorities subject to the
control of Government, holders of office of profit
under the Government would be to obliterate
the specific differentiation made under Article
58(2) of the Constitution and to extend
disqualification under Article 102(1)(a) to an
extent not warranted by the language of the
article.”
On the basis of the aforesaid, ultimately the threeJudge
Bench recorded its finding that the first respondent did not
hold an office of profit under the Government of Tripura on the
date of filing of the nomination.
Shibu Soren ... Appellant vs Dayanand Sahay & Ors. ... Respondents on 19 July, 2001
The Court analyzing the law enunciated in Ravanna Subanna
(supra) and Shibu Soren (supra) opined that it is well settled that
where the office carries with it certain emoluments or the
order of appointment states that the person appointed is
entitled to certain emoluments, then it will be an office of
profit, even if the holder of the office chooses not to
receive/draw such emoluments. What is relevant is whether
pecuniary gain is "receivable" in regard to the office and not
whether pecuniary gain is, in fact, received or received
negligibly.
Jaya Bachchan vs Union Of India And Ors on 8 May, 2006
In Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India and others12, the
issue arose whether the petitioner was holding an office of
profit. She was appointed as Chairman of the Uttar Pradesh
12 (2006) 5 SCC 266
33
Film Development Council and was entitled to certain benefits.
State Of Assam & Ors vs Shri Kanak Chandra Dutta on 3 October, 1966
In State of Assam and others
37
v. Kanak Chandra Dutta13 , Bachawat, J., speaking for the
Constitution Bench, held that 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 by it 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 such a relation between the
State and the alleged holder of a post.
Roshan Lal Tandon vs Union Of India on 14 August, 1967
In this regard, reference to another Constitution Bench
decision in Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India14 would be
apposite. In the said case, it has been opined that the legal
position of a Government servant is more one of status than a
13 AIR 1967 SC 884
14 AIR 1967 SC 1889
38
contract. The hallmark of status is the attachment to legal
relationship of rights and duties imposed by the public law
and not by mere agreement by the parties. The duties of status
are fixed by the law and status is a condition of membership of
a group of which powers and duties are exclusively determined
by law and not by agreement between the parties concerned.
As is evincible, emphasis was given on the status in
contradistinction to contractual service.