GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF & ANR. versus SUBHASH CHANDRA YADAV & ANR.

GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF & ANR. versus SUBHASH CHANDRA YADAV & ANR.

Rule 5-C of the Cantonment Funds Servants Rules, 1937, allowing transfer of employees between Cantonment Boards, was void as being in excess of Central Government's rule-making power under the unamended Section 280(2)(c) of the Cantonments Act, 1924. The service under Cantonment Boards is neither centralised nor at State-level, thus the Central Government cannot authorize such transfers. Amendment of Section 280(2)(c) does not retrospectively validate the rule.

Parties
Appellant: General Officer Commanding-in-Chief; Respondent: Subhash Chandra Yadav; Respondent: Cantonment Board
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 February 1988
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment After Special Leave Granted
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rule Making Power, Ultra Vires, Transfer of Employees, Statutory Autonomy
Administrative Law Service Law Rule Making Power Ultra Vires Transfer of Employees Statutory Autonomy

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

General Officer Commanding-in-Chief

Appellant

Subhash Chandra Yadav

Respondent

Cantonment Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment After Special Leave Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 5-C of the Cantonment Funds Servants Rules, 1937 is ultra vires the Cantonments Act, 1924
  2. 2 Whether the Central Government had authority to frame rules permitting transfer of employees from one Cantonment Board to another

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 5-C of the Cantonment Funds Servants Rules, 1937, allowing transfer of employees between Cantonment Boards, was void as being in excess of Central Government's rule-making power under the unamended Section 280(2)(c) of the Cantonments Act, 1924. The service under Cantonment Boards is neither centralised nor at State-level, thus the Central Government cannot authorize such transfers. Amendment of Section 280(2)(c) does not retrospectively validate the rule.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of the Allahabad High Court affirmed
  • Rule 5-C struck down as ultra vires