IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
HARISH TANDON, PRASENJIT BISWAS, JJ.
Rajeev Ranjan – Petitioner
Versus
The Comptroller and Auditor General of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.C.T. 118 of 2019
Decided On : 31-03-2023
CAG Powers - Appointment and Condition of Service - Article 148, Article 309 - [Article 148, Article 309]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Junior Hindi Translator, claimed that the post of Hindi Officer should be re-designated as Assistant Director (OL) with higher Grade Pay and Pay Band based on various circulars and office memorandums. The dispute revolved around the powers of the CAG under Article 148 (5) of the Constitution of India and the power of the President under Article 309.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the powers of the CAG and its subordination to the Central Government under the Constitution of India. It held that the CAG has independent powers in relation to the recruitment and condition of service of its employees under Article 148 (5) and is not subordinate to the President's power under Article 309. The court directed the respondent to take a decision on the petitioner's claim within a specified timeframe.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of the powers of the CAG under Article 148 (5) and its subordination to the President's power under Article 309 in relation to the appointment and condition of service of its employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the CAG has independent powers under Article 148 (5) and is not subordinate to the President's power under Article 309 in matters concerning the recruitment and condition of service of its employees.
Final Decision: The court modified the order of the Tribunal and directed the respondent to take a decision on the petitioner's claim within a specified timeframe.
JUDGMENT :
Harish Tandon, J.
The present appeal raises an important and significant issue pertaining to the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) under Article 148 (5) of the Constitution of India vis-à-vis the power of the President under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
2. Before we proceed to decide the aforesaid point the salient facts of the case are required to be adumbrated hereinafter. The petitioner herein was appointed as a Junior Hindi Translator on 26.9.2000 in the office of the Director-General of Commercial Audit & Ex-Officio Member Audit Board-II, Kolkata under the Indian Audit and Accounts Department. Subsequently, the writ petitioner was offered promotion as Hindi Officer in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800 in PB-2 on the basis of an Office Order no. 132 dated 17.10.2011 and was made permanent in the said posts. The petitioner started raising the dispute immediately thereafter being promoted to the post of Hindi Officer at the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800 in PB-2 by making a representation on 3.11.2011 claiming that the post of the Hindi Officer is equivalent and identical to the post of the Assistant Director (OL) for which a Grade Pay of Rs. 5400 at PB-3 has been granted vide Office Memorandum dated 24.11.2008 and its corrigendum dated 27.11.2008 issued by the Director (IC) of Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure. Therefore, the petitioner should also be extended the said Grade Pay as well as the Pay Band. According to the writ petitioner all the Ministries/ Departments have been granted revised pay scale approved for various posts in the Central Secretariat Official Language Service (hereinafter referred to as “CSOLS”) cadre in various subordinate offices of the Central Government. The petitioner thus, claimed that the moment the post of the Hindi Officer is re-designated as the Assistant Director (OL) and placed at the higher Grade Pay and the Pay Band, the post of the Hindi Officer becomes obliterated and to be re-designated as the Assistant Director (OL) at the Grade Pay and the Pay Band attached to such re-designated post. Various Circulars, office Memorandums and the Orders issued by the Central Government and the Ministry of Expenditure including the Office Memorandum as well as the recommendations of the CAG have been relied upon by both the parties which we will deal with in seriation for the purpose of its applicability and extending the benefits so claimed by the writ petitioner.
3. Before we embark our journey upon the facts emanate from the record, it is first and foremost to ascertain the powers of the CAG and its subordination to the Central Government under the provisions of the Constitution of India.
4. Article 148 of the Constitution of India incorporated in Chapter 5 thereof relates to the CAG of India where the appointment can be made by the President by warrant under his hand and seal and can also be removed from the office in the similar manner as that of the Judge of the Supreme Court. Sub-Article 5 of Article 148 bestowed the administrative powers upon the CAG in relation to the condition of service of the persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department on the basis of the Rules prescribed by the President after consultation with him subject to the provisions of the Constitution or any law made by the Parliament. Article 309 of the Constitution of India, more particularly, proviso inserted thereto confers power upon the President or such person as he may direct in relation to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union in relation to services and the posts to make Rules regulating the recruitment and the condition of service of such person until the provision in that behalf is made by or under an act or legislation.
5. The importance of appointing a Comptroller General was always felt necessary even at Pre-Independence Era to control and regulate the expenditure of any money from the treasury; even under the Govern
AI
Doctrine of equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of law i.e. equal pay must be for equal work of equal value.
A civil servant cannot be dismissed by an authority subordinate in rank to the authority that appointed them, reaffirming Article 311(1) of the Constitution.
The classification of posts and determination of pay scales falls within the executive's domain, and courts should not interfere unless there is clear arbitrariness.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.