V S MURTY Vs. DEPUTY CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision in Writ Petition No. 1021 of 1975 filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad which came to be transferred under para 14 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Order 1975 and which was numbered as Transferred Writ Petn. No. 1663 of 1976, by which Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders permanently absorbing respondents 2 to 10 in the various posts in the office of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Nagarjuna Sagar Project. Respondents 2 to 10 in the High Court are the appellants in the present appeal, and original petitioners are respondents 2 to 108. Deputy Chief Accounts Officer is respondent No. 1.

(2.) Nagarjuna Sagar Control Board was constituted in the year 1955 charged with a duty to implement N. S. Project. The Board had the power to recruit required ministerial staff on purely temporary basis. On Aug. 1, 1959, a decision was taken by the Andhra Pradesh Government to disband the autonomous Board and to convert it into a department of the Government. On the conversion of the set up of the Board into a department of the Government, it became necessary to devise ways and means to absorb the employees recruited by the Board. Number of controversies surfaced and to some extent the present one is one such controversy. There was an office styled as the office of the Chief Engineer, N. S. Dam with the Chief Engineer as Head of the Department. Appellants were serving in the office of the Chief Engineer, N. S. Dam Unit. By the order dated Feb. 8, 1964 appellants were transferred to the office of the Pay and Accounts Officer, N. S. Project. At the time of transfer, appellants were officiating as UDC and were directed to report to the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, N. S. Project to be posted as UDCs. Since then appellants have been working in the office of the Dy. CAO and some of them have been even promoted, may be temporarily, to the post of Superintendent. By the G. O. Ms. No. 27 PWD dated Feb. 3, 1972, the State Government accorded sanction to the permanent retention of the posts set out in the order with effect from 1-4-1967 in the office of Deputy CAO. Amongst others 38 posts of UDCs, were thus made permanent by this order. The aforementioned order further provided that the posts so made permanent shall be filled in by personnel already working in the Accounts Organisation. It appears that some of the appellants made a representation to the Dy. CAO for the permanent absorption in his office. Ultimately by various orders made in February, 1975, appellant, were permanently absorbed as UDCs in the establishment of Dy. CAO and they were given seniority as provided in Rule 27 of Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules. The respondents 2 to 108 who were petitioners before the Tribunal were working as UDCs or LDCs since the inception of their career in the office of Dy. CAO. They were initially recruited as LDCs during the period 1959-65. Some of them were promoted as UDCs from 1961 onwards. They were aggrieved by the permanent absorption of the present appellants who were respondents in the High Court. They accordingly filed the writ petition from which this appeal arises, contending that the appellants were holding substantively post of UDC in the office of the Chief Engineer and they were not transferred but sent on deputation in the Pay and Accounts Office as per the order dated Feb. 8, 1964 and other like orders by the Chief Engineer, N. S. Dam and they had a permanent lien in the parent department and therefore, they could not be absorbed in the office of the Dy. CAO. It was, therefore, contended that they may be repatriated to the parent department but in any event even if they are not to be repatriated, they could not claim to be absorbed permanently over the respondents who have been since the inception of their carreer working in the office of Dy. CAO. The specific contention was that the Deputy CAO not being the Head of the Department, the provision contained in Rule 3 (2) of Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules, 1961 would not be attracted and therefore the appellants could not be said to have been recruited by transfer and therefore, could not have been absorbed and they had no right to either claim any permanent post or promotion in the office of the Dy. CAO. The submission was that the permanent retention and absorption of the appellants adversely affected the promotional prospects of the present respondents and the retention and absorption and consequent seniority being contrary to relevant rules must be struck down as invalid.

(3.) The learned member of the Tribunal held that the Dy. CAO had not the powers of the Head of a Department. It was not therefore, within his competence to absorb and retain the appellants in his office and confirm them against the posts made permanent by the G. O. Ms. No. 27, dated Feb. 3, 1972. As a corollary it was held that the various orders made in February, 1975 permanently transferring, absorbing and retaining and consequently granting seniority to the appellants were violative of the rules and were struck down. Hence this appeal by the original respondents 2 to 10.