Kiran Raj

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, delivered a judgment on November 20, 2024, allowing an intra-court appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh and setting aside an earlier order of the Single Judge, which had directed the State to treat the respondent as a government employee with all consequential benefits. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh, held that the respondent, engaged as a driver under the Special Sugar Fund (SSF), could not be considered a government servant under the Uttar Pradesh Drivers Service Rules, 1984.

The Court observed that the respondent’s appointment and service under the Special Sugar Fund were governed entirely by the rules and resolutions of the SSF Committee, which did not confer the status of a government employee.

"The appointment of the respondent as a driver was made by the Cane Commissioner as a member of the Special Sugar Fund Committee, not under the statutory Drivers Service Rules, 1984. Thus, the respondent cannot claim the status of a government servant or the benefits attached thereto," the Bench stated.

The respondent, Vashistha Muni Mishra, was appointed as a driver on February 19, 1990, under the Special Sugar Fund, which was established pursuant to the Uttar Pradesh Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961. The respondent’s salary was drawn from the fund, and provident fund contributions were made under the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme, not the General Provident Fund (GPF) applicable to government employees.

In 2000, the respondent filed W.P. No. 4838 (SS) of 2000, seeking a mandamus to direct the State to treat him as a government servant. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition on May 1, 2019, holding that the respondent’s appointment order, issued by the Cane Commissioner, implied a government service status. Aggrieved, the State of Uttar Pradesh filed the present intra-court appeal.

The State contended that the respondent’s appointment and service conditions were exclusively governed by the Special Sugar Fund Committee, which was constituted under Section 3(12) of the 1961 Act. It was further argued that the respondent’s appointment was never made under the Drivers Service Rules, 1984, and the funds for his salary were derived from the SSF.

"The respondent was never appointed to a sanctioned government post under the Drivers Service Rules, 1984, and therefore, cannot claim the status of a government employee," counsel for the State submitted.

The State also brought to the Court’s attention the dissolution of the SSF following the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act in 2017. Employees under the SSF, including the respondent, were subsequently absorbed into Cane Development Councils.

The respondent’s counsel argued that the appointment order was issued by the Cane Commissioner, a statutory authority, and there was no explicit mention of the respondent being an employee of the Special Sugar Fund. It was submitted that the nature of the appointment and the regularization process indicated government service status.

The respondent further argued that the Single Judge had correctly interpreted the facts and the law to conclude that the respondent was entitled to be treated as a government servant with all consequential benefits.

The Bench held that the respondent’s appointment was made under the authority of the Special Sugar Fund Committee, which was distinct from the Drivers Service Rules, 1984. The Court relied on the documentary evidence, including minutes of SSF Committee meetings and correspondence, which consistently showed that the respondent was engaged as an SSF employee.

"The appointment of the respondent as a driver was made for specific purposes under the Special Sugar Fund, which had no sanctioned posts for drivers. The appointment and subsequent regularization were entirely governed by the resolutions of the SSF Committee," the Bench observed.

The Court further noted that with the implementation of the GST Act and the dissolution of the SSF, the State absorbed the employees into various Cane Development Councils as a matter of policy. The respondent was transferred and absorbed accordingly, and his subsequent challenge to the absorption order was withdrawn.

The Bench also observed that the respondent did not produce any evidence to show compliance with the Drivers Service Rules, 1984, during his appointment. The fact that provident fund contributions were made under the CPF Scheme further indicated the non-governmental nature of the employment.

The Court set aside the Single Judge's order, holding that the respondent was not entitled to claim government service status or the benefits thereof.

"The respondent’s appointment was never made against a sanctioned government post in accordance with the Drivers Service Rules, 1984. Consequently, the respondent cannot be treated as a government servant," the Bench concluded.

The writ petition filed by the respondent was dismissed, and the intra-court appeal by the State was allowed.

• Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Vashistha Muni Mishra
• Case Number: Special Appeal No. 283 of 2019
• Coram : Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh

[Read/Download order]