Appointment Order By Cane Commissioner Couldn’t Confer Status Of Government Servant; Appointment Should Have Been Against Sanctioned Post in Terms of Drivers Service Rules: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court allowed an intra-court appeal filed by the State and clarified that in order to substantiate the claim to be a government servant, the appointment of the employee should have been against a sanctioned post in terms of the Drivers Service Rules, 1984.
The High Court also held that the Single Judge erred by holding that issuance of an appointment order by the Cane Commissioner could confer the status of a government servant on such an employee
The intra-court appeal, before the High Court, was preferred by the State challenging the judgment whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent Vashishta Muni Mishra was allowed and a direction was issued to the State that the respondent should be treated as a Government Servant having been appointed in the office of Cane Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh with all consequential service benefits.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali & Justice Jaspreet Singh said, “The learned Single Judge has erred by holding that by issuing an appointment order by the Cane Commissioner could confer the status of a government servant on such an employee but had ignored the fact that in such circumstances the appointment of the respondent should have done only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1984 which admittedly was not done.”
Advocate Gaurav Mehrotra represented the Petitioners while Advocate Ajai Kumar Srivastava represented the Respondent.
The facts of the case suggested that in a meeting of the Uttar Pradesh Special Sugar Fund Committee, which was created as per the U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act of 1961, it was resolved that 6 posts be created. The Committee in its meeting also resolved that since 6 vehicles had been procured by the Special Sugar Fund Committee, hence, drivers for the said vehicles were to be appointed. In this context, it was resolved that the drivers may be appointed on daily wages. The respondent Vashishta Muni Mishra also came to be appointed and even though the appointment order was issued under the signatures of the Cane Commissioner but that was only as an authorized member of the Special Sugar Fund Committee.
While being appointed and having continued in service, the contributory provident fund was being deducted from the salary of the respondent and at no point of time, the GPF was deducted nor there was any communication indicating that the respondent was appointed under the Drivers Service rules of 1984. In the year 2019, the services of the respondent was absorbed alongwith few other employees, in the Cane Development Council, Saharanpur. Later, the Deputy Sugarcane Commissioner, Eastern and Central Region, Lucknow relieved the respondent from his services and he was required to join with the Cane Development Council.
It was the case of the Petitioner that the respondent was never appointed in the office of Cane Commissioner. The appointment of the respondent was under the Special Sugar Fund (Shakkar Vishesh Nidhi). Various documents were also brought on record to point out that right from the inception, the respondent was an employee of the Special Sugar Fund. His salary was being paid from the fund and then after about 8 years the respondent sought to raise the aforesaid dispute which even otherwise was is against the Rules as framed.
The Respondent’s Counsel referred to the minutes of the meeting of the Special Sugar Fund held in 2019, where there was a reference to the creation of certain Class-III posts but it did not include any post of drivers and in the absence thereof it couldn’t be said that the respondent was appointed on the post of driver from the said fund and since the respondent was appointed on daily wages where he was regularized by the Cane Commissioner, he would be an employee of the State Government and not of the Special Sugar Fund.
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench observed that the service of the respondent was made under the Special Sugar Fund. The appointment order as well as the regularization order which was passed by the Cane Commissioner was not in his capacity as an Appointing Authority under the Drivers Service Rules, 1984 but was as the nominated member of the Special Sugar Fund Committee.
“Admittedly, no post of a driver was sanctioned under the Special Sugar Fund Committee and the appointment of the respondent was on daily wages which came to be regularized and throughout the respondent was paid his salary from the Special Sugar Fund. The respondent always treated himself as an employee of the Special Sugar Fund but later raised the issue by filing the writ petition in question, without cogent reasons”, the Bench said.
It further added, “Be that as it may, in order to claim being a government servant, the appointment of the respondent should have been against a sanctioned post in terms of the Drivers Service Rules, 1984 which is admittedly not the case of the respondent.”
As per the Court, the appointment of the respondent was made by the Cane Commissioner as a member and on behalf of the Special Sugar Fund Committee constituted to supervise and manage the Special Sugar Fund and not in pursuance of the Drivers Service Rules, 1984. The Bench also explained that throughout the respondent treated himself to be a driver in the Special Sugar Fund and it was at a much later stage that a claim was sought to be raised by filing the writ petition. Later, the subsequent events which took place including the promulgation of the GST Act in the year 2017 and the absorption of the respondent and other similar persons working in the Sugar Special Fund in the different Cane Development Councils were all indicative of the fact that right from the inception, the respondent was appointed in the Special Sugar Fund.
Thus, allowing the intra-Court appeal, the Bench held, “This Court is of the view that the respondent could not be treated as a Government employee nor a mandamus in this regard could have been issued in favour of the respondent to treat him as Government servant with all consequential benefits.”
Cause Title:- State of U.P. through Prin.Secy.Sugar Lucknow and ors. v. Vashistha Muni Mishra (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:76409-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Gaurav Mehrotra,Tushar Mittal, Shreiya Agarawal
Respondent: Advocate Ajai Kumar Srivastava