Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

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

Decided
18 October 1994
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, S.C. SEN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 446 · 1994 INSC 462
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

In this appeal, the only que,tion 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 C.M.W.P. 20182/90 dated 12.11.90 declaring that the government had no power to dispense ·with the 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 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 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 coun1el. It is one of trust and confidence. So long as the trust and confidence remain and maintained by the counsel, the government 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 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 circumstances, 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.

p. 447, margin B