Back
M.M.DUTT, RANGANATH MISRA
General Officer Commanding In Chief – Appellant
Versus
Subhash Chandra Yadav – Respondent
What is the legality of Rule 5-C of the Cantonment funds Servants Rules, 1937 under Section 280(2)(c) of the Cantonments Act, 1924? What are the constitutional implications of transferring Cantonment Board employees from one Board to another within the same State? What are the limits of Central Government rule-making power regarding transfer of Cantonment Board employees?
Key Points: - Rule 5-C was struck down as ultra vires the Cantonments Act and beyond the Central Government's rule-making power before amendment. (!) (!) - The Cantonment Boards are autonomous, not centralised or State-level services; transfer across Boards within the same State entails termination and fresh appointment, thus not permissible under the existing framework. (!) (!) - Post-amendment, the Central Government’s power to frame rules for conditions of service includes transfer, but Rule 5-C remains invalid because it was void when framed and cannot be validated merely by amendment. (!) (!) - Central Government can frame rules for transfers within the region of its jurisdiction (e.g., within a Board’s own hospital), but not for transfers between different Cantonment Boards within the same State. (!) (!) - High Court correctly held Rule 5-C ultra vires; transfer order against respondent was quashed. (!) (!) - The appeal is dismissed; no order as to costs. (!)
Judgment
DUTT, J. :- As elaborate submissions have been made by both the parties at the preliminary hearing of the special leave petition, we proceed to dispose of the points involved in the case on merits after granting special leave.
2. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court striking down Rule 5-C of the Cantonment funds Servants Rules, 1937, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, as ultra vires the provisions of the Cantonment Act, 1924 and also quashing the impugned order of transfer dated October 27, 1986 passed by the GOC-in-Chief, Central Command.
3. The respondent, Dr. Subhas Chandra Yadav, was appointed a Sub-Charge, Cantonment General Hospital, Lucknow, by the Cantonment Board by the appointment letter dated 23-4-1969. He was confirmed in that post on 1-12-1969 by an order issued by the Cantonment Board. The conditions of service of the employees of the Cantonment Board, which is a statutory body, are governed by the provisions of the Rules. At the time of the appointment of the respondent, his services were not transferable as per the provisions of the Rules then prevailing. His appointment letter also did not include any condition for transf
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
