V. S. MURTY & OTHERS versus THE DEPUTY CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER & OTHERS

Citation: [1983] 2 S.C.R. 404 · Decided: 22-02-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
404 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
ff 
V. S. MURTY & OTHERS 
v. 
THE DEPUTY CHIEF ACCOUNTS 
OFFICER & OTHERS 
February 22, 1983 
[D.A. DESAI AND V. BALAKRISHNA BRAD!, JJ.) 
A.ndhra Prad.sh Ministerial Rules, 1961, Rule 3(2)-Whether the Deputy 
Chief Accounts Officers N.S. Project, is the Head of the Department-Seniority-
lnter-1e seniority of appellants and respondents, whether will be gOverMd by the 
jir1t proviso to Rule 36(e) or by the _second prov_iso thereto. 
The appeUants, who were serving in thC office of the Chief Engineer 
Nagarjuna Unit as officiating Upper Division Clerks, were transferred to the 
·office of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, N.S. Project by an order dated 
February 8, 1964. 
Respondents 2 to 108 were initially recruited as Lower 
Division Clerks during the period 1959-65 and some of them were prom()ted as 
Upper Division Clerks from 1961 onwards; After their transfer, their services 
were regularised by the Chief Engineer, as per bis proceedings dated August 11, 
1968. This was challenged by some of the persons similarly situated like the 
present respondents and the High Court disn1issed the Writ Petition as well as 
the writ appeal, -holding that the transfer was on administrative grounds and 
therefore their length of service in the parent department bad to be taken into 
account for the purpose of determining their seniority. 
By its order G.O.M.S. 27 P.W.D. dated February 3, 1972, the State 
Government accorded sanction to tbe permanent retention of the posts set out 
in the order with effect from 1.4.1967 in the office of the Deputy Chief Accounts 
Officer. Among other, 38 posts of the Upper Division Clerks were thus made 
permanent by this order with a further provision that the posts so made perma-
nent shall be filled in by personnel already working in the Accounts organisation. 
The appe1lants, whose services were aJre<fdy regularised were now made perma-
nent by the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer. 
Feeling aggrieved by the said orders the respondents filed a writ petition 
before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which was transferred to the A.P. 
Administrative Tribunal. 
The Tribunal allowing the petition held that the 
Deputy Chief Accounts Officer had not the powers of the Head of a Department 
and was. therefore, not competent to absorb and retain the appellants in his 
office and confirm them against th·: posts made permanent. Hence the appeal 
by special leave. 
• 
• 
v.s. MURTY v. D.C.A. OFFICER (Desai, J.) 
405 
Allowing tho appeal, tho Court 
HELD : 1:1. Tho Deputy Chief Accounts Officer now redesignated as 
Director of Accounts is the Head of Department for the purpose of Rule 3(2) of 
Service Rules and, therefore, the confirmation of the appellants against the 
permanent posts of Upper Division Clerk is in order. [411 E, 415 A·Bl 
1 :2. The De~uty Chi~f Accounts Officer is shown to be directly working 
undef a secretariat department without intervention of any higher office. When 
the office of the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer under whom the 
Dy, C.A.0. was directly working, was declared in 1966 as Secretariat department, 
the Dy. C.A.0. was invested with power of appointing authority which compre-
hended the power to appoint persons who would be eligible for pay scales 
applicable to the staff in the offices of the Heads of Department. The unofficial 
note dated June 11, 1969 of the P.A. and C.A.O. makes the position clear. 
(412 G; 413 A-BJ 
1:3. Even without reference to Rule 3(2), the appellants could be 
absorbed, in the instant case. Appellants were transferred to the office of Dy. 
C.A.O. in 1964. Their regularisation was held as valid and regular by an 
earlier decision of the A.P. High Court 
They having rendered service for 
eleven long years in the Accounts organisation before the impugned action was 
taken, they were entitled to be absorbed in the department by virtue of the 
pro;iso in G.0.M.S. 27 dated 3rd February 1972. [415 D,E,F-H, 416 A] 
2;1 
The inter-se-seniority of the appeilants and the respondents would 
be governed by ·the first proviso to Rule 36(e) and not by the second proviso 
thereto. Tbis position not only stands concluded by the earHer decision of the 
A.P. High Court but also by the very orders of transfer. (417 A-BJ 
2:2. The transfers were on ·admtnistra'tive grounds and certainty not at 
the request of the appellant. Further the transferred personnel could not have 
been considered as on deputation because if a Government servan

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