9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 831 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of order of Learned Single Judge - transfer of Collection Amin from Kanpur to Etawah - Authority under U.P. Trade Tax Collection Amins Service Rules, 1995 to transfer - Rule 27 of 1995 Rules and Rule 29 of the 1974 Rules - Held that - as far as 1974 Rules are concerned, they have no application whatsoever in reference of Collection Amin who have been working as such in the Uttar Pradesh Trde Tax Department, and have been absorbed in Trade Tax Department whereas Rule 29 of the 1974 Rules are applicable only in reference of Collection Amin of Revenue Department. As per exigency of service, transfer order has been effectuated after permission has been taken by the State Government strictly in consonance with the transfer policy, then there is no occasion for us to intervene in the matter - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues Involved:
Challenge to validity of transfer order of a Collection Amin from one district to another district in the Commercial Tax Department. Detailed Analysis: The appellant challenged the transfer order from Kanpur to Etawah, arguing that the U.P. Trade Tax Collection Amins' Service Rules, 1995, do not authorize such transfers between districts for Collection Amins. The appellant also invoked the U.P. Collection Amins' Service Rules 1974, stating that under Rule 29 of the 1974 Rules, transfers could only be made under special circumstances within the Division by the Commissioner of the Division or outside the Division by the Board of Revenue. The appellant contended that the transfer order breached statutory provisions, seeking relief through a Special Appeal. The respondent countered by stating that although the 1995 Rules do not address transfers specifically, Rule 27 of the 1995 Rules allows for governance by general rules applicable to government servants. The respondent argued that the 1974 Rules were not applicable to the Commercial Tax Department and that the transfer was made in public interest, urging the court not to interfere. The court analyzed the relevant rules, highlighting that the 1995 Rules governed Collection Amins in the Commercial Tax Department, while the 1974 Rules applied to Collection Amins in the Revenue Department. The court emphasized that once a Collection Amin was absorbed into service under the 1995 Rules, the provisions of the 1974 Rules for transfers did not apply. The court clarified that Rule 27 of the 1995 Rules governed matters not explicitly covered by the rules, allowing for general governance of government servants. The court noted that the transfer was made following government approval for establishing Collection Units in specific districts, including Etawah, and that the transfer was in line with the government's decision and transfer policy. Citing various judgments, the court concluded that there was no basis for intervention, dismissing the Special Appeal based on precedents like Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, State of U.P. Vs. Gobardhan Lal, and others. Therefore, the court upheld the validity of the transfer order, emphasizing the adherence to rules governing the service conditions of Collection Amins and the necessity of the transfer in public interest, leading to the dismissal of the Special Appeal.
|
