Back
2004 Supreme(All) 2477
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B.S. CHAUHAN, ARUN TANDON, JJ.
Civil Accounts Association and Others – Appellants
Versus
Union of India and Others - Respondents
C.M.W.P. Nos. 653, 654, 664, 740, 741, 1092, 1335, 1356, 3761 of 2004
Decided On : 26-03-2004
For the Appellants : T.P. Singh, Siddharth Singh, Vikash Budhwar.
For the Respondents: B.N. Singh, Satish Chaturvedi, Amit Sthalekar.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that transfers without the consent of the employees and in the absence of provisions for transfer under the service rules are illegal and not sustainable. The judgment emphasized the necessity of consent for deputation and the entitlement to deputation allowance.
Headnote:
TRANSFER - Employees Transfer - Comptroller and Auditor General (D.P.C.) Act, 1971, Article 151(2) of the Constitution of India, Indian Audit and Accounts Department (Senior Account) Recruitment Rules, 1988, Indian Audit and Accounts Department, Audit Officers (Commercial) Recruitment Rules, 1989, Indian Audit and Accounts Department (Senior Auditor) Recruitment Rules, 1985 - Sections 10 and 11 of the Comptroller and Auditor General (D.P.C.) Act, 1971, Article 148(5) of the Constitution of India - The court discussed the legal provisions under the Comptroller and Auditor General (D.P.C.) Act, 1971, Article 151(2) of the Constitution of India, and the Indian Audit and Accounts Department Recruitment Rules. The court emphasized the necessity of consent for deputation and the entitlement to deputation allowance, and quashed the transfer orders while allowing deputation with consent and ensuring payment of deputation allowance.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions were filed by employees of the office of Accountant General (A&E) I and II, Uttar Pradesh, challenging their transfer to the office of Accountant General (Audit and Accounts), Uttaranchal at Dehradun. The employees argued that their service rules did not provide for transfer outside the state of Uttar Pradesh and that the transfers were illegal and unsustainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer orders were illegal and not sustainable as the employees had not consented to the transfers, and there was no provision for transfer under their service rules. The court quashed the transfer orders but allowed deputation with consent and ensured payment of deputation allowance.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the transfers of employees from the office of Accountant General (A&E) I and II, Uttar Pradesh to the office of Accountant General (Audit and Accounts), Uttaranchal at Dehradun, and the applicability of service rules regarding transfers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that transfers without the consent of the employees and in the absence of provisions for transfer under the service rules were illegal and not sustainable. The court emphasized the necessity of consent for deputation and the entitlement to deputation allowance.
Final Decision: The court quashed the transfer orders but allowed deputation with consent and ensured payment of deputation allowance to the employees.
ARUN TANDON, J.
1. This bunch of 9 writ petitions has been filed by the recognised Association/Union of Senior Accountants, Accountants, Clerks and Supervisors as well as other employees working in the office of Accountant General (A&E) I and II, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad, along with individual employees belonging to the said categories of employees working in the said office.
2. All these writ petitions are directed against one common judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, dated 2nd January, 2004, passed in the group of Original Applications, being O.A. Nos. 1313 of 2003, 1314 of 2003, 1386 of 2003, 1369 of 2003, 1378 of 2003, 1379 of 2003, 1381 of 2003, 1382 of 2003, 1383 of 2003, 1384 of 2003, 1385 of 2003 and 1386 of 2003.
3. We have heard Sri T.P. Singh, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Vikas Budhwar as well as other Counsels on behalf of the Petitioners, Sri B.N. Singh senior standing Counsel on behalf of Union of India and Sri Amit Sthalekar on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
4. Original applications, referred to above, were filed by the Petitioners feeling aggrieved by the transfers made vide Office Order No. PAG (Audit)-1/Admn./Uttaranchal/171, dated 29.10.2003 and No. DGA/Transfer/232, dated 31.10.2003, whereby certain Senior Accounts Officer, Accounts Officer, Assistant Account Officers, Section Officers, Supervisors, Senior Accountants and Accountants from the office of A.G. (A&E) I and II, Allahabad, were transferred to the office of A.G. (Audit and Accounts) Uttaranchal at Dehradun.
5. The original applications filed by the Petitioners, after exchange of affidavits, were dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, by means of the judgment dated 2nd January, 2003. Hence present writ petition.
6. Material facts for adjudication of controversy at hand are State of Uttaranchal, was created under the U.P. State Reorganisation Act, 2000, passed by the Parliament, whereby certain parts of the State of Uttar Pradesh were carved out for creation of the new State of Uttaranchal.
7. Under Article 151(2) of the Constitution of India, Comptroller and Auditor General of India is required to submit audit report in relation to the accounts of the State to the Governor of the State, who in turn shall lay the same before the Legislature of the State.
8. Similarly under Sections 10 and 11 of the Comptroller and Auditor General (D.P.C.) Act, 1971, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India is required to compile the accounts of the State and submit report to the Governor. In respect of the State of Uttaranchal also the aforesaid constitutional and statutory obligations are required to be fulfilled by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. In order to carry out the aforesaid Constitutional and statutory obligation, the office of the Accountant General (Audit and Accounts), Uttaranchal at Dehradun, was established on 9th May, 2002. Since the office of Accountant General (Audit and Accounts), Uttaranchal at Dehradun, was created for the first time in the year, 2002, it was necessary that the newly created office was properly staffed and since it was not possible to make fresh appointments on the various posts in the newly created office, a transfer policy was formulated inter alia providing for transfer for a period of 18 months for the employees working in the office of Accountant General, U.P. at Allahabad. The transfer policy so formulated by the Respondent was given effect to by issuance of the orders of transfer dated 29th October, 2003 and 31st October, 2003.
9. Under the aforesaid orders of transfer, employees working in the office of Accountant General, U.P. at Allahabad, were transferred and posted at Uttaranchal for a period of 18 months. According to Department, audit cycle is a calendar of 12 months and prescription of 18 months takes care of the requirement in connection with the preparation of reports etc. Thus, there was rationality in fix
