STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus V.C. SUBBARAYUDU AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 299 · Decided: 22-01-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

) .... 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
A 
v. 
V.C. SUBBARA YUDU AND ORS. 
JANUARY 22, 1998 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Absorption of deputationists in State Service-Divisional Accountants 
Cadre and Subordinate Accountants Service cadre---GOM 304 dt. Nov. 20, C 
1979-Decision to take over Divisional Accountants from administrative 
control of Accountant General to State Service-Benefit of option not given 
to SAS Cadre-On challenge Tribunal directing extension of the benefit to 
SAS Cadre also---On appeal, held, no interference with the policy decision 
of the State Govt. to take over the Divisional Accountant Cadre-No direction D 
could be given to State Govt. to absorb SAS Cadre-No ambiguity in clause 
(I) Para (5) of GOM-Action of State Govt. neither discriminatory nor 
violative of Constitution-Constitution of India Art. 14. 
Judicial Self Discipline : 
In the same matter two Division Benches giving different views-Validity 
of-Held, if the second Division Bench had to take a different view propriety 
demands that the matter should have been referred to a larger Bench-
Courts should observe self-discipline. 
E 
The respondents were Accountants belonging to Subordinate Accounts F 
Service (SAS) of the Accountant General office. The State Govt. by GOM 304 
dt. Nov. 20,1979 decided to take over the cadre of Divisional Accountants 
from the administrative control of the Accountants Generat Options were 
given to the Divisional Accountants in the Accountant General Office. The 
respondents, in the SAS Cadre who were not given the benefit of GOM 304 
approached the Administrative Tribunal. While allowing their application, G 
the Tribunal directed that the Accountants belonging to Subordinate Accounts 
Service (SAS) Cadre of the Accountants General Office who were on the date 
of the take over as the Divisional Accountants in the State Service shall also 
be given option to be absorbed in State as per GOM 304. 
Hence this appeal by the State Government .. 
299 
H 
300 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] l S.C.R. 
A 
State contended that the Tribunal's interpretation of clause(!) of Para 
B 
5 of the GOM was not correct and that clause could not be read in isolation; 
and that the GOM clearly shows that it pertains to taking over of Divisional 
Accountants Cadre from the administrative control of the Accountant General 
and not of the SAS Cadre. 
The contention of the respondent was that the action of the State 
Government in deciding to take ever only the cadre of Divisional Accountants 
from the administrative control of the Accountant General and not the cadre 
of SAS was against the recommendations of the Committee and thus the 
action of the State GoHrnment was discriminatory and violative of Article 
C 14 of the Constitution. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: I.I. The action of the State Govt. under GOM 304 to take over 
the cadre of Divisional Accountants from the administrative control of the 
D Aci:ountant General and not the Cadre of Subordinate Accounts Service 
(SAS) is neither discriminatory nor violative of Article 14 of the constitution. 
(306-D] 
1.2. The Committee, which had been constituted and on the 
E recommendation of which GOM was issued did, however, recommend that 
SAS Accountants working in heavy and important divisions in the State 
might be taken over by the State Government while constituting the separate 
cadre and that they be put into Grade-I automatically. This recommendation 
did not find favour with the State Government and under GOM 304 the State 
F 
Government decided to take over only the cadre of Divisional Accountants 
from the administrative control of the Accountant General and not the Cadre 
of SAS. [306-C] 
2. It is a matter of policy for the State Govt. which in its wisdom 
decided to create a separate Cadre in the State by absorbing the Divisional 
G Accountants working on deputation in the State and who were under the 
administrative control of the Accountant General. No direction could be 
given to the State Govt. to have a different policy and to absorb the SAS 
Accountants in its newly constituted service. That the State Government 
will use the benefit of more experienced officers of SAS Cadre is for the 
H State Government to consider. Merely on the ground that the State Govt went 
, 
~-
.... 
)·-
STATE v. V.C. SUBBARAYUDU [D.P. WADHWA,J.) 
301 
against the recommendation of the Committee, plea of discrimination cannot A 
be advanced. [306-

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