The Pay and Accounts Office Employees Joint Action Committee vs The Government of A.P. and Others

B. Subhashan Reddy, J.—This Writ Petition was filed by the Pay and Accounts Office Employees Joint Action Committee, Hyderabad, represented by its Chairman V. Raja Mallaiah. Mr. V. Raja Mallaiah representing himself and also the Employees of the Pay and Accounts Office of Twin cities assails the validity of G.O.Ms. No. 4, Finance and Planning (P.W.Admn.l) Department, dated 1-1-1994, by which the functions, which are being discharged by the Pay and Accounts Office staff, are sought to be entrusted to the Treasuries and Accounts Department of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 1-2-1994.

The said Governmental Order is impugned as being violative of Article 150 of the Constitution of India, which hitherto read "the accounts of the Union and of the States shall be kept in such form as the Comptroller and Auditor- General of India may, with the approval of the President, prescribe"; now reads after forty-second and forty-fourth Constitutional amendment as ''the accounts of the Union and of the States shall be kept in such form as the President may, on the advice of the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India, prescribe''.

Pay and Accounts Office functions relating to State Government transactions and Treasuries function relating to Central Government transactions arising in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, were hitherto being carried out by the Accountant General of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. This was continued till 30th September, 1971, but from 1st October, 1971 these functions have been entrusted to Pay and Accounts Office, Twin cities. By G.O.Ms. No. 328, Finance (Admn.l) Department, dated 22-9-1971, from 1-10-1971 onwards new Pay and Accounts Office came into being. Personnel from various Departments trained in accounts were drafted to Pay and Accounts Office and they were also trained by the Personnel Accountant- General''s Office, Cadre was formed by framing rules titled ''Andhra Pradesh Pay and Accounts (Subordinate) Service Rules". Officers and staff, who were drafted on other duty were allowed to opt for absorption from or repatriation to their parent Departments. Officers cadre comprises the Pay and Accounts Officer, Deputy Pay and Accounts Officers, Assistant Pay and Accounts Officers, Pay and Accounts Superintendents, Auditors and Assistant Auditors, apart from other staff like Typists, Telephone operators, Record Assistants, Drafters, Attenders etc. The cadre strength of tine said Service of all the categories mentioned above, is 613. G.O.Ms. No. 328, dated 22-9-1971 is traced to Article 150 of the Constitution of India. It is clearly stated that before the issuance of the said G.O., prior concurrence of the Comptroller and Auditor- General of India was taken.

Mr. V. Venkataramana, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Pay and Accounts Office having been curved-out attached with the functions, which were hitherto discharged by the Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh and as the same relates to form of accounts of all the offices in the twin cities, now divesting the Pay and Accounts Office of such functions and entrusting the same by creating a new post of District Treasury Officer, Hyderabad (Urban) under the impugned G.O. requires the due compliance of Article 150 of the Constitution of India and as the President''s concurrence has not been obtained before issuance of the impugned G.O., the same is unconstitutional and is liable to be struck down. His second argument is that even if the impugned G.O. is intra-vires the Constitution, the same suffers from the vice of arbitrariness as the impugned G.O. is the result of representation and persuasion by the Treasuries and Accounts Department and the Rule of audi alterant partem was bound to be followed and as the same has been infracted resulting in violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned G.O. is unsustainable and is liable to be struck down.

Mr. Ghulam Mohammed, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh and Mr. P.N. Venkatachari, the learned counsel for respondents 6 to 9 counter the said argument stating that Article 150 of the Constitution of India is inapplicable in the instant case as, the said requirement already ceased when the concurrence was given by the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India under G.O.Ms. No. 328, dated 22-9-1971, that the present arrangement under the impugned G.O. is only a question of forum, i.e., Office and that it is no-way concerned with the form of accounts. They further contend that no notice was necessary to the Pay and Accounts Office staff as the order is administrative in nature and that the Government is entitled to entrust such functions to the Treasuries and Accounts Department as has been done in all the rural revenue districts and that merely because the Hyderabad is an urban district, it does not make any difference, if the functions discharged by the Pay and Accounts Office are also entrusted to the District Treasury Officer, Hyderabad (urban) district. Mr. P.N. Venkatachari, raises a further contention with regard to maintainability of the Writ Petition on twin grounds; (i) that the petitioner has got no locus standi to file the Writ Petition as the petitioner is a Committee, that too unregistered, and (ii) that this Court is not having jurisdiction as the impugned G.O. relates to service conditions, be it the Pay and Accounts Office staff or Treasuries and Accounts Department staff, and that the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal alone has got jurisdiction because of the provisions of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

I will deal the aspect of locus standi first, as it relates to maintainability of the Writ Petition. This is not a pro bono publico litigation. It is a lis instituted by a Committee, though unregistered, challenging the G.O. as being violative of a constitutional provision. The Chairman Mr. V. Raja Mallaiah is one of the employees of Pay and Accounts Office; as such, it cannot be denied that he is a person aggrieved and that even without other staff of the Pay and Accounts Office joining this Writ Petition, he can maintain the Writ Petition. That apart, the challenge is not on the touch-stone of Article 19 of the Constitution, where committee cannot espouse the cause of a citizen. For maintaining a Writ Petition of this nature, which also involves public element apart from the complaint of Pay and Accounts staff of violation of constitutional provision, a Writ Petition is maintainable. The decision rendered in Sand Carrier''s Owner''s Union and others Vs. Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta and others, cited by Mr. P.N. Venkatachari, has got no relevance for this case as in the said case dock permit fee was enhanced from Rs. 20.40 ps. to Rs. 1,000/- per annum per vehicle and that it was individual truck owners or lorry owners, who were affected and not the Association. As such, I hold mat the Writ Petition is maintainable.

With regard to second contention relating to the jurisdiction of this Court, a Full Bench of this Court has already struck down the relevant provision contained under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the constitutional provision empowering the above legislation. However, there is a stay of operation of the said Judgment granted by the Supreme Court and the said orders are subsisting. In any event, I need not dwell on the said aspect with regard to maintainability of the Writ Petition in the teeth of the said orders granted by the Supreme Court as I am of the considered view that this Writ Petition does not relate to the recruitment to service or conditions or matters relating thereto to be dealt with by Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal pursuant to any provisions contained under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The impugned G.O. has to be tested only on the touch-stone of Article 150 of the Constitution and it is not within the domain of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal to dwell on the said subject and as such, the basic judicial power of reivew of this Court conferred by the Constituent Assembly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not taken away and is in tact. Hence, I adjudicate the Writ Petition.

Points to be considered are:

(a) Whether the impugned Governmental Order required the compliance of Article 150 of the Constitution of India; and

(b) Whether the Rule otaudi alterant partem is applicable?

The Constitution contemplates centralised system of maintenance of accounts of the States and the audit thereof as the same ensures uniformity. Even in the interests of economy, such a centralised system is welcome. Article 150 of the Constitution of India has been incorporated in furtherance of the said object. The said constitutional mandate has got to be followed ant any act in infraction thereof will be non est.

The form of accounts to be maintained by the Pay and Accounts Officer regarding the presentation of bills at the cash counter and payment, of cash or cheque will be the same as that hitherto followed in the Office of Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and that the same is ex facie clear from G.O.Ms. No. 328, Finance (Admn.I) Department, dated 22-9-1971. According to the petitioner, there is a variance in the form of accounts as the Pay and Accounts Office conducts 100% per-audit of claims towards Pay and Allowances, T. A., Contingencies, Grant-in-Aid, different types of scholarships etc., on the same lines as the Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad was hitherto checking, that the conduct of pre-audit business requires full knolwedge of all types of rules both in respective departments and Codal Rules, keeping in view of the latest amendments and Executive instructions of the Government issued from time to time and that the rules are spread over in voluminous books in the shape of Service Rules, Fundamental Rules, Financial Rules, Treasury Rules, Budget Manual, Manual of Special Pay and Allowances, CCA. Rules, Conduct Rules, Rules of Grants-in-Aid Scholarship Rules, H.B. A., M.C.A., Pay Rules and L.T.C Rules, Special Service Rules applicable to each service and Department etc. It is also their case that the rules governing All India Service Officers have also to be fully acquainted before different types of claims of the said Officers are finally settled and authorised for payment and that after the claims are settled and payments are authorised, the accounts under all Heads (about200 sub-accounts) have to be prepared in the classified forms upto seven-tier to be rendered to the Accountant General and the Government. They also state that the technical supervision of the Pay and Accounts Office, New Delhi has been brought under this organisation, that the Compilation Branch (State Bank of Hyderabad) under District Treasury Officer, Hyderabad (Urban) is also kept under the supervision of Pay and Accounts Officer, Hyderabad and that the Pay and Accounts Officer is also appointed as Drawing and Disbursing Officer in respect of A.I.S., G.I.S., in G.O. Rt. No. 321, GA (SC X) Department, dated 27-1-1983 and also the Governmental Memo No. 2090/SC X 81-9. They contend that the above form and system followed by the Pay and Accounts Office is quite different and distinct from that of Treasuries and Accounts Department and that there is a total variance. As such, a real and genuine dispute subsists to determine an important factor as to whether by issuance of the impugned Governmental Order, the form of accounts is changed, in which case prior concurrence of the President of India as contemplated under Article 150 of the Constitution of India is necessary and if the form of accounts does not undergo any change and it is the only forum, that is, the change in Officer or office staff, is changed, no such concurrence may be necessary. But, for determination of this contentious factual issue, a factual finding is necessary, which may not be possible, more so in this case, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Material on record leaves no doubt in the mind of this Court that the impugned Governmental Order has been issued only at the instance of Andhra Pradesh Treasuries Subordinate Service Association and the same is mentioned as 3rd reference in the impugned G.O. and even though the impugned order is administrative in nature, in view of the effect it has got because of the contentions raised by the petitioner as also the necessity to reach a just, fair and objective decision, principles of natural justice warrant an opportunity of enquiry and hearing to the petitioner also and as such it was incumbent upon the respondent-Government to follow the audi alterant partem Rule, which the Government had grossly violated.

In view of what is stated supra, the impugned G.O.Ms. No. 4, Finance and Planning (P.W. Admn.I) Department, dated 1-1-1994 is quashed and set aside. This does not preclude the respondent-Government from issuing notice afresh to both the petitioner and respondent No. 6, enquire into the matter, follow the above guidelines for fact finding, going into the details with regard to form of accounts maintained by the existing procedure being followed by the pay and Accounts Office and as to whether the divestment of the said functions from the Pay and Accounts Officer and entrustment of the same to Treasuries and Accounts Department as was intended to be done under the impugned Governmental Order, involves a change in the form of accounts, which was prescribed and which is being followed by the Office of the Accountant- General, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. It is made very clear that if it involves any change in the form of accounts, no action shall be taken unless the constitutional mandate under Article 150 is complied with.

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.