Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the same has been passed in pursuance to the directions issued on 5.4.2006 in CWP No.4946 of 2006 titled as Jaswinder Singh and others vs. Union of India and others by this Court calling upon the said authority to dispose of a representation. The order notices that the sole grievance of the petitioners is that the office of CAG shall cease to maintain their GPF accounts which were earlier being maintained by the CAG's office on account of the petitioners being employees of Chandigarh Administration as they were employees of the College. This was stated to be in violation of the assurance given by the Chandigarh Administration vide its communications to the effect that the service conditions of the absorbed employees would remain the same as if they were Government servants and that no service condition would be modified to the detriment of the employees (letters dated 23.11.2004 and 12.12.2004). The order is predicated on the sole reasoning that since the petitioners ceased to be Government servants consequent upon upgradation of College to that of a deemed University, the responsibility of the CAG to maintain the GPF accounts as part of its duties in relation to maintenance of Government accounts would come to an end. The order seeks to suggest that the authority passing the order was really not even competent to decide this issue. Thus, the CAG's office seeks to wash its hands off the issue predicated on their being no legal obligation to maintain any type or class of accounts in relation to the society.

The aforesaid is not a theoretical debate, since the issue is one affecting the rights of the employees. The petitioners are not urging this issue just for the sake of it as there are serious consequences flowing from the creation of the private trust and the GPF accounts not being maintained by the CAG. Among the consequences are: (i) on maintaining by CAG, it is a part of the consolidated fund of India; (ii) the private trust may not have any security even qua shortfall in corpus; (iii) the actual prejudice which has come to pass is the approach adopted by the Income Tax Department in issuing notices to individuals seeking to add their contribution to the Provident Fund Account to their income and even threatening imposition of penalty; and (iv) the pension trust fund would depend upon its own fund alone.

It is not as if this is a unique situation which has arisen for the reason that it is not disputed before us that as per Annexure P/7 on creation of Municipal Corporation of the area, the funds continued to be managed under the Chandigarh Administration and, consequently, under the CAG avoiding these very complications.

We may also note the unequivocal stand of the Chandigarh Administration as well as the College that the accounts are required to be audited by the CAG and the GPF account is required to be managed by the office of the CAG.

We are, thus, unable to accept the plea of the learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1, 5 and 7 (Union of India and the CAG's office) that the CAG not being party to these notifications can wash its hands off the issue. It is not as if it is for the first time that the audit is sought to be entrusted to the CAG's office so as to invite Section 20 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971, which has a proviso that such a request made qua a body which has not been entrusted to the CAG would be with the consultation of the CAG. The CAG has been carrying on the audit in the present case earlier and the conditions of the notification converting the College into a deemed University and thereafter entrusting its management to a Society registered for the said purpose itself require a continued role of the CAG.