1988 (2) TMI 462 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms Rule 5-C void, limits Central Govt's transfer power to single Cantonment Board jurisdiction

GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF Versus Dr. SUBHASH CHANDRA YADAV

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, declaring Rule 5-C of the Cantonment Funds Servants Rules, 1937, ultra vires and void. The Central ... Whether the Central Government is entitled to frame rules for transfer of the employees of the Cantonment Boards under the substituted clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 280 of the Cantonment Act? Held that:- As has been held by the High Court, the Central Government has power to frame rules about the transfer of the servants of the Board in exercise of its powers under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 280 of the Act within the region in respect of which it has jurisdiction. For example, the respondent could be transferred from one hospital of the Cantonment Board, Lucknow, to another hospital under the same Board. But that apart, the Cantonment Act does not authorise the Central Government to frame rules for transfer from one Cantonment Board to another. The High Court was, therefore, quite justified in striking down rule 5-C of the Rules and in quashing the impugned order of transfer of the respondent. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of Rule 5-C of the Cantonment Funds Servants Rules, 1937.2. Authority of the Central Government to frame rules regarding the transfer of employees of Cantonment Boards.3. Impact of the amendment to Section 280(2)(c) of the Cantonment Act, 1924 on Rule 5-C.4. Autonomy and jurisdiction of Cantonment Boards in transferring employees.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Rule 5-C of the Cantonment Funds Servants Rules, 1937:The respondent was appointed by the Cantonment Board and his initial terms of service did not include a provision for transfer. Rule 5-C, introduced in 1972, allowed for the transfer of employees between Cantonment Boards within the same State. The High Court struck down Rule 5-C, holding that the services of Cantonment Board employees are neither centralized nor part of a common State-level service. The rule was deemed beyond the Central Government's rule-making power as per the unamended Section 280(2)(c) of the Cantonment Act.2. Authority of the Central Government to Frame Rules Regarding the Transfer of Employees of Cantonment Boards:The Central Government's power to make rules under Section 280 of the Cantonment Act was examined. Before its amendment in 1983, Section 280(2)(c) did not include the power to frame rules regarding conditions of service, including transfers. Therefore, Rule 5-C, introduced in 1972, was found to be contrary to the Central Government's rule-making power at that time.3. Impact of the Amendment to Section 280(2)(c) of the Cantonment Act, 1924 on Rule 5-C:Post-amendment, Section 280(2)(c) allowed the Central Government to frame rules regarding conditions of service, including transfers. However, the Court held that Rule 5-C, invalid when framed, did not become valid merely due to the subsequent amendment. The rule-making power must conform to the statute under which it is framed and fall within the scope of the authority's power.4. Autonomy and Jurisdiction of Cantonment Boards in Transferring Employees:Cantonment Boards are statutory and autonomous bodies, each functioning within its limited jurisdiction. The transfer of an employee from one Cantonment Board to another would imply termination of the appointment in the original Board and a fresh appointment in the new Board. The GOC-in-Chief, Central Command, who ordered the respondent's transfer, was not the appointing authority, making such a transfer impermissible. The Court referenced a previous judgment, emphasizing that without a centralized or State-level service, transfers between autonomous bodies are not feasible.Conclusion:The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, declaring Rule 5-C ultra vires and void. The Central Government's power to frame rules for transfer under the amended Section 280(2)(c) was acknowledged but limited to within the jurisdiction of a single Cantonment Board. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order of transfer was quashed. The Court suggested that the Central Government consider centralizing the Cantonment Board service to facilitate such transfers in the future.