STATE OF U.P.versusU.P. GOVT. COUNSEL (CRL.) WELFARE ASSOCIATION

A                                  STATE OF U.P.
                                           v.
         U.P. GOVT. COUNSEL (CRL.) WELFARE ASSOCIATION

                                 OCTOBER 18, 1994

B                     (K. RAMASWAMY AND S.C. SEN, JJ.]

          Uttar Pradesh Government Litigation (Engagement of Counsel) Or-
    dinance, 1991.

C         Stay of operation of ordinance by High Court-Interim suspension of
    stay order by Supreme Court-Interim order made absolute.

          Conseqnent to the decision of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High
    Court holding that Government has no power to dispense with the services
    of the Standing Counsel appearing in the High Court for the State of U.P.,
D   the Government promulgated the Uttar Pradesh Government Litigation
    (Engagement of Counsel) Ordinance, 1991 regulating the assignment of
    work and payment of fees to the Govt. Counsel. The operation of the said
    ordinance was stayetl by the High Court against which State of U.P. bas
    preferred this appeal. In the meanwhile the Judgment of the Division Bench
    of the High Court was set aside by this Court. Further, by its order dated
E   8th February' 91 this Court suspended the operation of order or the
    Division Bench of the High Court and made the interim suspension ab-
    solute.

            Allowing the appeal, this Court

F         HELD : In the circumstances of the case, the order dated 8th
    February' 91 is made final. However, the Court does not propose to express
    any opinion on merits of the Ordinance since it is a matter to be gone into
    by the High Court. [447-G)

            State of Uttar Pradesh v. U.P. State Law Officers Association, [1994) 2
G   S.C.C. 204, referred to.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 670 of
    1991.

            From the Judgment and Order dated 17.1.91 of the Allahabad High
H Court in W. No. Nil of 1991.
                                          446
         STATE v. U.P. GOVT. COUNSEL (CRL.) WELFARE ASSN.              447

      D.V. Sehgal and A.K. Srivastava for the Appellant.                     A

      R. Venkataramani (NP) for the Respondent.

      The following Order of the Court was delivered :

        In this appeal, the only que,tion is whether the High Court was B
justified in staying the operation of the Uttar Pradesh Government Litiga-
tion (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 C.M.W.P. 20182/90 dated
12.11.90 declaring that the government had no power to dispense ·with the C
services of Standing Counsel appearing for the Government of U ttar
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 D
Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. U.P. State Law Officers Association, [1994)
2 SCC 204. 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 oervice 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 govern- E
ment 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 coun1el. It is one of trust and confidence. So long as the
trust and confidence remain and maintained by the counsel, the govern-
ment would engaged the counsel. 1 he Government have the liberty to
relieve a counsel for the reason that they do not have confidence in the F
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 January 17, 1991 by order February
8, 1991 and made the interim suspension absolute. Under these circumstan- G
ces, this appeal is allowed. The order dat~d February 8, 1991 is made final.
We do not propose to express any opinion Oh merits of the Ordinance since
it is a matter to be gone into by the High Court. The appeal is accordingly
allowed. No costs.

T.N.A.                                                     Appeal allowed.