COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA AND ORS. versus FARID SATTAR

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1067 · Decided: 07-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

·-
--
COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
FARID SATIAR 
APRIL 7, 2000 
[V.N. KHARE AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Fundamental Rules-Rule 22(l)(a)(3)-Applicability of-Fixation of 
pay-Of Senior Accountant-Voluntarily opting/or junior post as condition for 
unilateral transfer-Fixation of pay in the junior post-Plea, that the pay 
drawn at the higher post has to be protected even after reversion to the lower 
post-CAT held, since unilateral transfer not contemplated under Fundamental 
Rules, the transfer is governed by the Rule, and hence entitled to draw pay at 
higher post-On appeal, Held, transfer not governed by Fundamental Rule, 
hence pay drawn at the higher post not required to be protected. 
Respondent, while officiating on the post of Senior Accountant, ap-
plied for mutual transfer. Since mutual transfer was not permissible in the 
cadre of Senior Accountant, the respondent was advised to apply for 
unilateral transfer conditions for which he would have to seek reversion to 
the lower post of Accountant as a direct recruit, foregoing the status of 
Senior Accountant. Respondent applied for the unilateral transfer accept-
ing the conditions thereof. After transfer as an Accountant, his pay scale 
was erroneously fixed as that of Senior Accountant. The pay scale of 
Senior Accountant was higher than that of Accountant. The pay scale of 
the respondent was refixed as that of Accountant, vide a Memorandum, 
after finding the mistake in fixation of his pay. 
Respondent challenged the Memorandum refixing his pay, before 
Central Administrative Tribunal, on the ground that the pay which he was 
drawing as Senior Accountant has to be protected, even if he was reverted 
to the post of Accountant. The appellants contended that his pay was not 
required to be protected because the respondent was bound by the terms 
and conditions of the unilateral transfer and his pay was to be fixed as 
· direct recruit. Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the application, 
holding that respondent's case was to be governed by Fundamental· Rule 
22(1) as having gone on transfer on request,-~nce unilateral transfer is not 
1067 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1068 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
contemplated by Fundamental Rules. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
" In appeal to this court, it was contended by the appellant that the 
pay of the respondent was to be fixed as per the terms and ~onditions of 
unilateral transfer, and Fundamental Rules were not applicable in this 
case. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. If unilateral transfer is not contemplated under the Fun-
damental Rule, it is not necessarily to be governed by Fundamental Rules 
but by the terms and conditions of such unilateral transfer. [1071-C] 
2. The pay of respondent as fixed earlier, was correctly re-fixed. 
Under the terms and conditions of the transfer, the pay which the respond-
ent was drawing on higher post was not required to be protected when he 
joined the lower post of Accountant. [1072-B-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 13020 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.5 .96 of the Central Administra-
tive Tribunal, Calcutta, in O.A. No. 1297 of 1995. 
K.N. Raval, Additi<?nal Solicitor General, P.P. Malhotra, Mrs. Niranjana 
Singh, Hemant Sharma, Anil Katiyar, C.V. Sobba Rao, Raj Kumar Gupta, 
H.V.P. Shanna, A.N. Bar'diyar, Arvind Kumar Sharma, D.P. Chaturvedi, S.N. 
Bhat and Ms. Anubha Jain for the appearing parties. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
H 
V.N. KHARE, J. Farid Sattar, respondent herein, joined a.s an Auditor 
in the Office of the Accountant General (A & E), West Bengal on 16.2.1982. 
Consequent on the bifurcation of Audit and Accounts, the respondent was 
transferred to the Office of the Accountant General (A & E), West Bengal on 
1.11.1985. The respondent opted for the accounts wing and as such he was 
retained there and subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Accountant on 
4.12.1987. In December, 1990 the respondent while officiating on the post of 
Senior Accountant applied for mutual transfer with one Shri Paresh Ghosh, 
Senior Accountant, working in the Office of the Senior Deputy Accountant 
General (A & E), Sikkim. As mutual transfer was not permissible in the cadre 
COMP1ROI.LER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA v. FARID SATIAR [V.N. KHARE, J.] 1069 
of Senior Accountant, the respondent was advised to apply for unilateral 
transfer after seeking reversion to the low

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.