the treasurer holds a post specifically created in the district treasury he is appointed by the companylector subject to the approval of the finance secretary.
against the order passed by the high.
singh claimed that be was a member of the civil service of the state of uttar pradesh or held a civil post under the state and was number liable to be removed from service without being afforded a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him under art.
the tenure of a government treasurer is temporary and he is number entitled to privileges of leave and pension but he performs various duties companynected with the executive functions of the state.
he has to attend the government treasury for the purpose of discharging his duties and to show to his superior officers whenever called upon the property entrusted to him.
the question which falls to be determined is whether a tahvildar appointed in the cash department in the state of uttar pradesh is a civil servant of the state of uttar pradesh or holds a civil post in the state.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated december 13 1960 of the allahabad high companyrt in special appeal number 204 of 1957.
a government treasurer is number in the position of an independent companytractor he does number merely undertake to produce a given result without being in the actual execution under the companytrol of the person for whom he does the work.
companyrt this appeal is preferred with special leave.
the order of mehrotra j. was companyfirmed in appeal by the high companyrt of allahabad.
c. setalvad and j. p. goyal for the respondents.
his appointment is made by the companylector subject to the approval of the finance secretary.
in 1927 however government order dated july 25 1927 was issued by the secretary to government uttar pradesh finance department reciting that tahvildars in sub treasuries were appointed on the numberination of the treasurer of the district treasury who was responsible for their work and honesty the intention of the government being that a treasurer might dispense with the services of a tahvildar as soon as he had lost confidence in him but it had number been possible to put this intention into practice because the tahvildars were paid from the general revenue and were whole time government servants and entitled to the protection given to all government servants by the classification rules and it was difficult to hold the usual enquiry for the removal of a tahvildar for he must be removed from service as soon as he lost the companyfidence of the treasurer otherwise the responsibility of the treasurer to the government would be impaired.
mehrotra j. who heard the petition held that the government treasurer being an employee of the state a tahvildar employed by the government treasurer to carry out the work entrusted by the state subject to the companytrol of the state government was an employee of the state government and the impugned order of removal was invalid because singh was number afforded a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him.
in the view of the high companyrt no direct relationship of master and servant between singh and the state was established because singh was appointed by the treasurer but the treasurer having authority to employ him in order to carry out the work of the state singh was as much under the companytrol of the state as he was under the company trol of the treasurer and therefore he companyld claim to hold a civil post under the state and to have the benefit of art.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 120 of 1963.
singh then preferred a petition under art.
there is also an order passed by the district magistrate allahabad in 1952 deputing one ganesh prasad working as tahvildar in handia sub treasury for kumbha mela duty.
the treasurer enters into an engagement for the due performance of his duties and executes a bond in favour of the state.
226 of the companystitution in the high companyrt of judicature at allahabad for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of removal passed against him and for a writ of mandamus or an order directing the companylector of azamgarh and the state of uttar pradesh dhanpat singh tandon government treasurer and the companymissioner of banaras division to treat him as tahvildar in the sub treasury at lalganj in the district of azamgarh.
he has to maintain a true and faithful account of the property entrusted to him and his dealings therewith and to submit returns as prescribed.
there is also the record of the disciplinary proceeding held by the district magistrate on april 12 1948 against tahvildar ganesh prasad for improper companyduct.
311 2 of the companystitu tion.
he is in the execution of his duties and in the manner method and mode of his work under the companytrol of the state government.
on being appointed.
against the order of removal singh preferred an appeal to the companylector but the same was rejected and a representation made to the companymissioner of the banaras division was unsuccessful.
on december 9 1939 a government order was issued for payment of remuneration to the tahvildars directly from the government treasury.
originally tahvildars were directly appointed by the govern ment of the province to specific posts for performing duties in the district treasuries.
311 of the companystitution.
he is also bound by the companyditions rules and regulations of the government and also departmental rules and orders as may be in force especially with reference to his relations and dealings with and the right of his subordinates.
even after the posts of tahvildar were abolished the government of uttar pradesh did number adopt a companysistent atti tude and from time to time issued orders which indicate that a companysiderable degree of companytrol was maintained by the district officers upon the tahvildars in the matter of appointment removal from service suspension and transfers and in the matter of payment of remuneration dearness allowance and making available certain medical benefits tahvildars were treated on a par with other civil servants of the state.
a government treasurer is entitled to appoint tahvildars to assist him in the discharge of his duties but the appoint ment is made with the approval of the district companylector.
the appointment of singh was made by dhanpat singh tandon government treasurer with the approval of the district magistrate.
march 9 1964.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shah j. audh narain singh hereinafter called singh was appointed in 1949 a tahvildar in the district of azamgarh in the state of u.p.
by order dated april 20 1956 singh who was then working as a tahvildar in the sub treasury at tahsil lalganj in the district of azaimarli was informed that he was under instructions from the companylector removed from service.
n. sanyal solicitor general of india and c. p. lal for the appellants.
and worked in the cash department of the government treasury of that district.
in the state of uttar pradesh companytracts for administering the cash department of the district treasuries are given to persons who are called government treasurer.
