AZIM-UD-DIN Vs. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONSEQUENT upon the integration of the State Audit and Accounts with the centre with effect from 1. 5. 1958, the employees of the erstwhile office of the Accountant Gen. were absorbed at various levels of the Central audit and accounts service in accordance with the recommendations of a committee called Assessment Committee consisting of the representatives of the Centre and the State. At the relevant time there were seventy four Superintendents -cum -Senior Accountants including the petitioners in the office of the Accountant General Jammu and Kashmir. The Committee classified them as under:

(2.) THE petitioners were placed in class b iii They were appointed permanently as Upper Division Clerks and allowed to officiate as SAS Accountants, their confirmation being dependent on their passing or being exempted from such test as the Comptroller and Auditor General might prescribe. The Comptroller and Auditor General prescribed the modified test for them. The petitioner passed the prescribed test, petitioners 1 & 2 in July, 1972 ; Petitioner No. 3 in April, 1969; petitioner No. 4 in March 1973 and, within the time allowed by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. They claimed seniority among SAS Accountants on the basis of their length of service beginning from the date of officiation, Viz 1. 5. 1958, Respondents 1 to 3 rejected the claim of the petitioners and held that their seniority had to be fixed in accordance with their length of service beginning from the date on which they had passed their prescribed test. By means of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to fix their seniority in the cadre of SAS Accountants on the basis of their length of service beginning from 1. 5. 1958, the date of their officiation and to allow them consequently benefits of pay and rank accordingly.

(3.) CHAPTER V of the Manual of standing Orders Administrative of the Audits and Accounts Department provides for the organisation of the subordinate accounts and matters relating thereto. The controversy in this case hings round the provisions of Rule 184 2 which governs the seniority of the members of the Subordinate Accounts Service. Rule 184 2 interalia says : - "The seniority of a person appointed to officiate in the Subordinate Accounts service shall ordinarily be based on the date on which he first begins to officiate after passing the SAS examination."