GOVERNMENT OF NCT, DELHI versus ALL INDIA CENTRAL CIVIL ACCOUNTS, JAO'S ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 494 · Decided: 03-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
GOVERNMENT OF NCT, DELHI 
v. 
ALL INDIA CENTRAL CIVIL ACCOUNTS, 
JAO'S ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 
OCTO_BER 3, 2001 
[S. R~JENDRA BABU AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Employees of Central Government-Deputation on posts in Government 
of National Capitai Territory (NCT) Delhi-Repatriation of the deputed 
employees to parent department-Repatriation challenged-Tribunal held 
repatriation not correct, since NCT, Delhi being a Union Territory, all the posts 
and services under its control would be central services-On appeal-Held, 
repatriation justified-The posts under NCT, Delh.i could not be said to be part 
of parent department, as NCT, Delhi is a separate entity-Delhi Administration 
Accounts Service Rules, 1982-Rules 5 and 7-NCT Delhi (Allocation of 
Business) Rules, 1993-Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 
1961-Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991-
Departmentalisation o.f Union Accounts (Transfer of Personnel) Act, 1976-
Central Civil Services (Class(fication, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965-
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 309, proviso to 309(2) and 239 AA. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Article 136-Appeal under-By Union Territory-Maintainability of-
Held, maintainable since Union of India as well as Union Territory impleaded 
F 
as separate parties ii} the Court-Government of National Capital Territory of 
Delhi Act, 1991-'-Section 52(b). 
·G 
Article 239-Union Territory-Status of-Held, though centrally 
administered, it does not become merged with the Central Government and they 
fonn part of no State and yet are the territories o.f Union. 
l· · 
.. 
, 
I 
Appellant-Government of NCT, Delhi issued order repatriating staff 
in Delhi Administration Accounts Service, posted in various divisions under 
Public Works Department on deputation from Ministry of Urban 
Development. 
H 
The order was challenged before Central Administrative Tribunal 
494 
-
.... 
GOVT. OF NCT v. ALL INDIA CENTRAL CIVIL ACCOUNTS 
495 
by Respondent No. I-Association on the ground that the order of 
repatriation was without jurisdiction and competence as PWD of NCT, 
Delhi was part of CPWD accounts staff, which were under administrative 
control of the Ministry of Urban Development and all the Civil Works and 
PWDs of Union of India had been treated to be under the Ministry, 
therefore, all the officers and staff including the accounts staff of PWD 
. belonged to CPWD. 
Chief Controller of Accounts and Union of India supported the case 
of respondent No. 1 stating that Central Government had overriding powers 
on the Government of NCT, Delhi since Central Civil Senices 
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 include all services or 
posts of the NCT, Delhi and hence the service conditions of employees 
thereof were to be regulated by the Union of India under proviso to Article 
309(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950. 
Tribunal allowed the applications holding that despite introduction 
of Article 239 AA of the Constitution of India and coming into force of 
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991, NCT, Delhi 
would still continue to be a Union Territory and as Union Territory all the 
posts and services under its control continued to be the Central Services 
and posts; and that in view of Delhi Administration Accounts Services 
Rules, 1982 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution and the 
Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, NCT, Delhi was 
subjected to general control and supervision of the Ministry of Urban 
Development of the Union of India in so far as management of the Services 
of CPWD was concerned; and that the executive powers exercised by Lt. 
Governor, Delhi in respect of various services were subject to the overall 
control and supervision of the President. However, on merits it observed 
that Union of India should have decided whether the applicants who were 
admittedly not part of Delhi Administration should have been absorbed in 
i~ Accounts Service or not. 
In Appeal to this Court Union of India raised preliminary objection 
that the appeal by the appellants was not maintainable in view of Section 
52(b) of the Act as all suits and proceedings in connection with the 
Administration of the Capital were to be instituted by or against the 
Government of India. Respondents contended that the order of repatriation 
was without jurisdiction; and that under Delhi Administration Accounts 
Service Rules, 1982 only 

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