http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: U.P. GOVERNMENT COUNSEL (CRL.) WELFARE ASSOCIATION

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/10/1994

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. SEN, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR  575            1995 SCC  Supl.  (1)  15  JT 1995 (2)   490        1994 SCALE  (4)607

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                            ORDER In this appeal, the only question is whether the High  Court was justified in staying the operation of the Uttar  Pradesh Government  Litigation  (Engagement of  Counsel)  Ordinance, 1991  (U.P. Ordinance No. 2 of 1991).  It would appear  that consequent  to  the decision of the Division  Bench  of  the Allahabad  High Court allowing CMWP No. 20182 of 1990  dated 12-11-1990,  declaring that the Government had no  power  to dispense with the services of Standing Counsel appearing for the  Government  of  Uttar  Pradesh in  the  High  Court  at Allahabad  as well as Lucknow Benches, the  Governor  issued the aforesaid Ordinance regulating the assignment of work of the government counsel and the payment of their fee for  the work  done  by the counsel.  The judgment  of  the  Division Bench,  which  is  the  foundation  for  the  Ordinance  was questioned by the Government in this Court in State of  U.P. v.  U.P.  State  Law  Officers’  Assn.1  This  Court   after considering  the gamut of the controversy held that the  law officers appointed by the Government to look after the  work of  the  Government was only professional service  as  legal assistants and the service rendered by the counsel is only a service-oriented professional service.  Therefore, they  are not employees of the Government.  The Government is entitled to  regulate its work by prescribing the conditions  subject to  which the work of the Government could be  entrusted  to and  be discharged by the counsel.  It is one of  trust  and confidence.  So long as the trust and confidence remain  and maintained by the +  From  the  Judgment  and Order  dated  17-1-1991  of  the Allahabad High Court in W. No. Nil of 1991 1 (1994) 2 SCC 204: 1994 SCC (L&S) 650: (1994) 26 ATC 906 16 counsel,  the  Government  would engage  the  counsel.   The Government  have  the liberty to relieve a counsel  for  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

reason  that  they do not have confidence  in  the  counsel. Since this Court had set aside the judgment of the  Division Bench,  obviously  the respondent has lost interest  in  the matter  and,  therefore, none is appearing  in  the  matter. This  Court  suspended  the operation of the  order  of  the Division  Bench dated 17-1-1991 by order dated 8-2-1991  and made   the   interim  suspension  absolute.    Under   these circumstances, this appeal is allowed.  The order dated 8-2- 1991  is  made  final.  We do not  propose  to  express  any opinion  on merits of the Ordinance since it is a matter  to be  gone into by the High Court.  The appeal is  accordingly allowed.  No costs. 17