J G PRASADA RAO Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(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 State's scale of pay. Admittedly, all the deputationists had opted for and the service was constituted w. e. f. 1/1/1980. In paragraph 8 thereof it was stated that: