STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH K L SHARMA R D GUPTA ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Vs. U P STATE LAW OFFICERS ASSOCIATION :U P STATE LAW OFFICERS ASSOCIATION HIGH COURT ALLAHABAD :STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH:STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted in S.L.P. Nos. 14525 and 4912 of 1991.

(2.) At the relevant time, there were 64 law officers working for the U. P. State Government in the High Court of Allahabad including its Lucknow Bench. By an order dated 23-7-1990, the State Government removed 26 of the said law officers. Out of these, 9 law officers had been working for a long time, some of them for more than 15 years. Their continuation as law officers was till further orders. Another 11 officers of the removed officers had been appointed in 1982-83 and they continued to work till the date of their removal without renewal of their term. The remaining six law officers were appointed variously in March and May, 1989 for a period of one year only with a stipulation that they could be removed any time without giving any reason whatsoever. Their term had also not been renewed after the expiry of the initial period of their appointment. There is no dispute that in cases of all these 26 officers and indeed in cases of all the law officers appointed in the High Court, the terms of appointment contained a condition that notwithstanding the period for which they were appointed, they could be removed at any time without giving any reason whatsoever.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order dated 23-7-1990, the law officers who were removed from their posts, and aggrieved by the order of 26-5-1990, the then Brief Holders approached the High Court by a writ petition contending, among other things, that their removal was against the principles of natural justice and that they could be removed from their offices only for valid reasons. The High Court accepted the contention of the law officers and by its impugned judgment, quashed the orders removing them from their offices. The High Court also quashed the order dated 26-5-1990 passed by the State Government by which the Government had abolished the system of the engagement of Brief Holders and directed the respondents to continue the said system. The High Court further quashed all the fresh appointments made by the State Government and directed the payment of remuneration to the officers who were removed, from the date of their removal. In the course of the judgment, the High Court has also made observations against the Legal Remembrancer. These appeals are, therefore, preferred by the State as well as those who were newly appointed by the State Government as its law officers.