Dismissed

Arun Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Mar 2011LPA/38/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an letters patent appeal where an auctioneer challenged his dismissal. Holding that Section 43(2)(viii) does not cover auctioneers as the term 'other functionaries' includes specific categories like brokers and surveyors but not auctioneers, and Rule 19 omits auctioneers, the court ruled the post lacked statutory character.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. The appellant's engagement on a commission basis was not held to be a statutory post.

Arun Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

LPA No. 38 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶4

CHANDIGARH.

¶5

LPA No. 38 of 2011 Date of decision 15 .3.2011

Arun Kumar

... Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶10

... Respondents.

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

¶12

Present: Mr.V.B.Aggarwal,Advocate for the appellant

¶13

To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶14

Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?

¶15

M.M.KUMAR, J.

¶16

The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgement dated 1.7.2010 of the learned Single Judged holding that the appellant would be engaged as Auctioneer as and when required for auction to be conducted by the respondent- Committee.

¶17

It is not disputed that the appellant was engaged as Auctioneer on commission basis at Market Committee Shahbad on 25.4.1984 (R.2). His rate of commission was 8 paise per Rs. 100/- of the value. The learned Single Judge has found that the Auctioneer is appointed on commission basis and not on regular basis. He is to earn commission at a specified rate. 3. Mr. V.B.Aggarwal, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that Section 43(2)(viii) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the 1961 Act') would cover the case of the appellant because it uses the expression 'other functionaries'. The expression 'other functionaries' would include even the Auctioneer and therefore the post of the appellant shall be regarded as statutory in character.

¶18

¶19

LPA No. 38 of 2011

¶20

We have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the same. Reliance of the learned counsel on Section 43(2)(viii) of the Act is wholly mis-placed. In order to appreciate his submission , we set out below Section 43 of the Act:

¶21

“ 43. Power to make Rules.(1) The State Government may by notification makes rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act.

¶22

(2)In Particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for-

¶23

xx xx xx

¶24

(i) to (viii) xx (viii) the issue by a Committee of licences to brokers, weighment, measurers, surveyors, godown-keepers or other functionaries, the form in which, and the conditions under which, such licences shall be issued or renewed and the fees, if any, to be charged therefore;”

¶25

A perusal of Section 43(i) of the Act would show that it is an enabling provision and the State Government may make rules for carrying out the purpose of 1961 Act. Sub Section 2 of Section 43 would further show that the rules to be framed by the respondent- State may provide for issuance of licenses by a Committee to brokers, weighmen, measurers, surveyors, godown-keeper or other functionaries. There is no mention of Auctioneer. In the absence of any specific rule having been framed by the respondent- State, it would not be possible to conclude that the engagement of Auctioneer has a statutory flavor. Rule 19 of the Punjab Agricultural

¶26

LPA No. 38 of 2011

¶27

¶28

Produce Market (General) Rules, 1962 would further show that only the aforesaid categories have been included and therefore there is no rule framed for the Auctioneer. In the absence of any statutory content it cannot be concluded that the appellant has acquired any right to be engaged as Auctioneer. He has been engaged on commission basis and the learned Single Judge has permitted him to continue as such by giving the option to the respondent to keep on engaging him as and when required to function as Auctioneer. There is thus no merit in the appeal. Dismissed.

(M.M.Kumar) Judge

15 .3.2011

(T.P.S. Mann) Judge

okg

Arun Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Resham Singh Vs Surjit Kaur etc.

Rajinder Singh Siwatch Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Ram Phal Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Others

Hari Pal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors.

Malook Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.