SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(SC) 918

K.RAMASWAMY, B.L.HANSARIA
J. G. Prasada Rao – Appellant
Versus
Secretary To Government – Respondent


Advocates:
A.D.N.Rao, A.SUBBA RAO, D.Bharali Reddy, D.RAMA KRISHNA REDDY, J.G.Prasada Rao, K.RAM KUMAR

( 1 ) WE have heard the appellant in person, who prepared the case thoroughly and argued very neatly and meticulously, point by point, making analytical presentation of the case with reference to various orders issued by the government and cleared the clogs which had crept in the controversy.

( 2 ) THE government of A. P. had obtained from Accountant General, A. P. , the services of Divisional Accountants, SAS Accountants and SAS passed Auditors on deputation to the State government as Divisional Accountants. A three-member committee appointed to advise the government on the desirability and feasibility to absorb them in the State Service, had recommended for absorption. On consideration thereof, in GOM No. 304 Finance and Planning, dated 20/11/1979, the government had decided to lake them over from the administrative control of the Accountant General, A. P. subject to the terms and conditions stated therein.

( 3 ) THE cadre of the Divisional Accountants was constituted with the Finance and Planning Department of the government to exercise administrative control. It called for options from them which were subject to their accepting service conditions of the State government and the















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top