GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF & ANR. versus SUBHASH CHANDRA YADAV & ANR.

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 62 · Decided: 25-02-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF & ANR. 
'( 
A 
v. 
SUBHASH CHANDRA YADAV & ANR. 
FEBRUARY 25, 1988 
~ 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MOHON DUp, JJ.] 
Cantonments Act, 1924: Section 280(2)(c)-Rule making power- ,+ 
Cantonment Funds Servants Rules 1937, Rule 5C-Held void being in 
excess of rule making power. 
··~ 
Cantonment Funds Servants Rules 1937: Rule SC-Services of 
c employees of Cantonment Boards-Transfer of-From one post in one 
' 
Board to another post in another Board-Whether valid-Rule 5C held 
-~. 
void-fxcess of rule making power under section 280(2)(c) of Canton-
ments Act, 1924. 
i:> 
The first respondent was appointed a Sub-Charge, Cantonment 
General Hospital, Lucknow by the Cantonment Board by an appoint-
ment letter dated 23.4.1969, and was confirmed in that post on 
!. 12.1969. The conditions of service of the employees of the Canton-
ment Board, a statutory hoard, were governed by the provisions of the 
Cantonment Funds Servants Rules, 1937. At the time of appointment, 
~ 
E 
the services of the respondent were not transferable as per the provi-
sions of the Rules as then prevailing. His appointment letter also did not 
include any condition for transfer from one Board to another. 
By a notification dated 16.12, 1972, the Rules were amended and a 
• 
new rule, being rule 5--C was added to provide for the transfer of the 
F 
services of the employees of the Cantonment Boards from one· post in 
>---
one Board to another post in another Board within the same State. 
The G.O.C.-in-Chief, Central Command by his order dated 
October 27, 1986 transferred the first respondent from the Cantonment 
General Hospital, Lucknow, to the Cantonment General Hospital, 
G 
Varanasi, and the incumbent at Varanasi in turn being transferred to 
the Cantonm~nt General Hospital, Bareilly. 
. Being aggrieved by the order of transfer passed under rule 5--C of 
>--·· 
the Rules, the first respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court 
challenging the validity of the order of transfer on the ground that rule 
5-C was ultra yires the provisions of the Cantonments Act and as such, 
H void. 
62 
; 
~ 
' .,. 
-~ 
-
GENL. OFFICER v. S.C. YADAV 
63 
The High Court struck down rule 5-C as being ultra vires the 
provisions of the Cantonments Act, i924 and held that the services of 
the employees of the Cantonment Board are neither centralised nor i.-
there a common State level service and that rule 5-C having provided 
for the transfer of the employees of one Board to another Board by the 
GOC-in-Chief, Central Command is beyond the rule making power of 
the Central Goverument as contained in clause (c) of sub-section (2) of 
section 280 of the Cantonments Act as it stood before it was amended. It 
accordingly quashed the order of transfer dated October 27, 1988 pas-
sed by the GOC-in-Chief, Central Command. 
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the 
appellants: (!)that after the amendment of clause (c) of sub-section (1) 
of Section 280 of the Cantonments Act conferring on the Central 
Government the power to lay down the conditions of service of the 
employees of the Boards. which include the power to make rules for 
transfer, rule 5-C is valid being in conformity with the provisions of 
the rule making power under section 280(2)(c) of the Act, and (2) that 
the respondent would not be in the least prejudiced by the transfer 
inasmuch as full safeguard has been provided for in rule 5-C. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that: (i) service 
under the Cantonment Board is not a centralised service or a service at 
the State level, and (2) the transfer of an employee from one Canton-
ment Board to another would mean the termination of the appointment 
of the employees in the Cantonment Board from which he is transferred 
and a fresh appointment in the Board where he is so transferred. 
Dismissing the Appeal, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
HELD: J. The High Court was justified in striking down rule 
F 
s~c of the Rules and in quashing the order of transfer of the res-
pondent. 172G) 
2. Rules framed under the provisions of a statute form part of the 
statute. Rules have statutory force. But before a rule can have the effect 
of a statutory provision two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, ( 1) it 
G 
must conform to the provisions of the statute under which it is framed; 
and (2) it must also come within the scope and purview of the rule 
making power of the authority framing the rule. If either of these two 

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