1998 (1) TMI 527 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of clause (i) of para 5 of GOM 304.
2. Inclusion of SAS Accountants in the State Service.
3. Allegations of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.
4. Validity of the Tribunal's judgment in light of previous High Court decisions.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Clause (i) of Para 5 of GOM 304:
The dispute primarily revolved around the interpretation of clause (i) of para 5 of GOM 304. The Tribunal's interpretation was that SAS Accountants should also be given the option to be absorbed in the State Service. However, the Supreme Court found that the GOM 304 did not contemplate the inclusion of the SAS cadre but pertained only to the Divisional Accountants cadre. The Court emphasized that the GOM and even para 5 clearly indicated the takeover of the cadre of Divisional Accountants from the administrative control of the Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh, and not the SAS cadre. The Court concluded that there was no ambiguity in clause (i) of para 5 of the GOM, and it was clear that the State Government intended to take over only the cadre of Divisional Accountants.

2. Inclusion of SAS Accountants in the State Service:
The Three Man Committee had recommended that SAS Accountants working in significant divisions might be taken over by the State Government and placed in Grade-I automatically. However, the State Government decided to take over only the cadre of Divisional Accountants and not the SAS cadre. The Court held that this decision was a matter of policy and within the State Government's discretion. The Court stated that it could not direct the State Government to adopt a different policy and include SAS Accountants in the newly constituted service.

3. Allegations of Discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution:
The respondents argued that the State Government's decision was discriminatory as it went against the Three Man Committee's recommendation and overlooked the SAS Accountants' long-standing service. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the policy decision of the State Government did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the State Government's decision was based on administrative considerations and was not discriminatory.

4. Validity of the Tribunal's Judgment in Light of Previous High Court Decisions:
The Tribunal's judgment was challenged based on previous High Court decisions. Initially, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had directed that SAS Accountants working as Divisional Accountants on the date of takeover should also be given options to be absorbed in the State Service. This decision was affirmed by a Division Bench but later overturned by another Division Bench, which dismissed the writ petitions filed by the SAS Accountants. The Supreme Court noted that the second Division Bench should have referred the matter to a larger bench if it intended to take a different view from the first Division Bench. However, the Court did not delve into the validity of the orders passed by the two Division Benches as the SAS Accountants did not appeal against the second Division Bench's decision.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, and dismissed the OAs filed by the respondents. The Court concluded that the GOM 304 clearly intended to take over only the cadre of Divisional Accountants and not the SAS cadre, and the State Government's policy decision was not discriminatory.