1980 (11) TMI 162 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to seniority based on length of service as Upper Division Clerks.
2. Validity of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department (Subordinate Accounts Service & Subordinate Railway Audit Service) Service Rules, 1974.
3. Retrospective operation of the Rules of 1974.
4. Status of paragraph 143 of the Manual of Standing Orders.
5. Validity of Rule 7(2) of the Rules of 1974 concerning seniority fixation.

Summary:

1. Entitlement to Seniority Based on Length of Service as Upper Division Clerks:
The respondents claimed seniority in the Subordinate Accounts Service based on their length of service as Upper Division Clerks, relying on paragraph 143 of the Manual of Standing Orders as it stood before its amendment in 1956. The Comptroller and Auditor-General rejected this claim. The High Court of Madras allowed the respondents' writ petition, but the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, concluding that the respondents' claim must fail.

2. Validity of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department (Subordinate Accounts Service & Subordinate Railway Audit Service) Service Rules, 1974:
The respondents challenged the validity of the Rules of 1974, arguing that clause (5) of Art. 148 does not permit retrospective enactment of rules. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that clause (5) of Art. 148 confers power on the President to frame rules operating prospectively only. Consequently, sub-rule (2) of rule 1, which declares that the Rules of 1974 will be deemed to have come into force on 27th July, 1956, was held ultra vires.

3. Retrospective Operation of the Rules of 1974:
The Supreme Court held that the Rules of 1974 could not have retrospective operation as clause (5) of Art. 148 does not permit the enactment of retrospectively operating rules. Therefore, the Rules of 1974 cannot be applied retrospectively to affect the respondents' seniority.

4. Status of Paragraph 143 of the Manual of Standing Orders:
The Supreme Court concluded that paragraph 143 of the Manual of Standing Orders remained a departmental instruction and did not acquire statutory force. Therefore, it could be amended by the correction slip issued by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in 1956.

5. Validity of Rule 7(2) of the Rules of 1974 Concerning Seniority Fixation:
The respondents argued that Rule 7(2) conferred arbitrary power on the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, stating that the Comptroller and Auditor-General, as a high-ranking constitutional authority, is expected to act without arbitrariness and in accordance with the needs of the service.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeals Nos. 1584-1588 of 1973, set aside the judgment and order of the Madras High Court, and dismissed the writ petition. Writ Petition Nos. 357 of 1979 and 4367 of 1978 were also dismissed. There was no order as to costs. Appeals allowed and Petitions dismissed.