State of Maharashtra Vs. R.N. Gangwani & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 92 of 1995
With Civil Appeal No. 649/1997
With Civil Appeal No. 649/1997
Petitioner: State of Maharashtra
Respondent: R.N. Gangwani & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 92 of 1995
With Civil Appeal No. 649/1997
With Civil Appeal No. 649/1997
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & RUMA PAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 17, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965
Section 76(2) with Maharashtra Civil Service (Revisions of Pay) Rules, 1978 – Service conditions of municipal employee – Notification dated 14.5.84 by municipal administration – Municipal council not allowed to sanction pay scale of employee, exceeding the pay and allowance prescribed by 1978 rules – Grant of pay scale equal to the scale of similar post in govt. service – Permissibility. Held that reliance on govt. resolution dated 16.4.84 was improper and same pay scale could not have been granted even if Maharashtra Civil Service Rules were mutatis mutandis, applicable. Orders set-aside and matter remitted for re-hearing.
Held:
Notification of the directorate of municipal administration purported to have been passed under section 76(2) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 dated 14th May, 1984 which deals with the service conditions of municipal employees. Clause (3) puts an embargo on the municipal council not to sanction the pay scale to a municipal employee exceeding the pay scale and allowance prescribed by the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1978. But ipso facto it would not tantamount to hold that it does provide that the pay scale of a municipal employee should be the same as that of a government servant. (Paras 1,2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal by the state government is directed against the impugned judgment of the division bench of the Bombay High Court disposing of a writ petition filed by two of the municipal employees granting the relief contained in clauses (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of prayer in the writ petition filed. From the impugned order, it transpires that on the very first day, the High Court made the rule returnable forthwith and after hearing the counsel appearing for all parties concerned, allowed the writ on a finding that the case is fully covered by the government resolution dated 16.4.1984. Having examined the resolution dated 16.4.1984, we find that that resolution deals with the service conditions of the government employees which has got nothing to do with the municipal employees. There appears to be a notification of the directorate of municipal administration purported to have been passed under section 76(2) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 dated 14th May, 1984 which deals with the service conditions of municipal employees. Clause (3) thereof is relevant for the purpose, which reads as under:
” 3) the pay scales and allowances of municipal employees shall not exceed the pay scales and allowances prescribed by Maharashtra Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1978 or by any other orders issued by government as modified from time to time, shall be applicable to the corresponding post or post carrying similar duties in government service or and shall be subject to the approval by the authority declared to be competent under section 76 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act. However, the DA shall be admissible as per the orders applicable to government servant from time to time”.
2. The aforesaid clause puts an embargo on the municipal council not to sanction the pay scale to a municipal employee exceeding the pay scale and allowance prescribed by the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1978. But ipso facto it would not tantamount to hold that it does provide that the pay scale of a municipal employee should be the same as that of a government servant. On the other hand, any resolution of a municipal council granting any pay to an employee of the municipality on the assumption that the holder of the post in question discharged the similar duties as a corresponding post in the government service will be subject to the approval of the authority declared to be competent under section 76 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act. Sub-clause (5) of the aforesaid order, no doubt, states that the service conditions and benefits of the Maharashtra Civil Service Rules modified from time to time issued in that behalf by the government would mutatis mutandis apply to a municipal employee. Therefore, it would be logical to hold that if a municipal employee is discharging the same duties in respect of the post of a corresponding employee of the government, then the municipal council would be entitled to grant him the pay scale as is available to his counter part in the government. But that requires certain determination of facts and on the basis of circular ipso facto the relief could not have been granted. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct that the High Court may re-hear the writ petition filed before it being W.P. no. 250/94, after giving opportunity of hearing to the state government. The state government is directed to file its counter affidavit within six weeks from today. Failure on the part of the state government to file its counter affidavit within the said period, will entitle the High Court to dispose it of on the materials available on record. The High Court would do well in disposing of the matter within three months.
3. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
C.A. No. 649/97
4. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.4.1996 passed by the High Court of Bombay.
5. It transpires that the employees of a particular municipality filed a complaint before the industrial tribunal claiming certain relief. Before the industrial tribunal, the state government never filed any written statement or objected to the reliefs prayed for. The tribunal, on the basis of the materials before it, passed an award. The award was sought to be assailed before the High Court by filing a writ petition. In the meanwhile, a contempt application appears to have been filed before the High Court for non-enforcement of the award passed by the industrial tribunal. Even though notice was issued in the contempt proceeding, the state government chose not to file any show cause in the matter. The High Court, therefore, by the impugned order dismissed the writ petition filed, assailing the legality of the award of the tribunal. In view of the gross laches on the part of the state government, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
1. This appeal by the state government is directed against the impugned judgment of the division bench of the Bombay High Court disposing of a writ petition filed by two of the municipal employees granting the relief contained in clauses (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of prayer in the writ petition filed. From the impugned order, it transpires that on the very first day, the High Court made the rule returnable forthwith and after hearing the counsel appearing for all parties concerned, allowed the writ on a finding that the case is fully covered by the government resolution dated 16.4.1984. Having examined the resolution dated 16.4.1984, we find that that resolution deals with the service conditions of the government employees which has got nothing to do with the municipal employees. There appears to be a notification of the directorate of municipal administration purported to have been passed under section 76(2) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 dated 14th May, 1984 which deals with the service conditions of municipal employees. Clause (3) thereof is relevant for the purpose, which reads as under:
” 3) the pay scales and allowances of municipal employees shall not exceed the pay scales and allowances prescribed by Maharashtra Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1978 or by any other orders issued by government as modified from time to time, shall be applicable to the corresponding post or post carrying similar duties in government service or and shall be subject to the approval by the authority declared to be competent under section 76 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act. However, the DA shall be admissible as per the orders applicable to government servant from time to time”.
2. The aforesaid clause puts an embargo on the municipal council not to sanction the pay scale to a municipal employee exceeding the pay scale and allowance prescribed by the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1978. But ipso facto it would not tantamount to hold that it does provide that the pay scale of a municipal employee should be the same as that of a government servant. On the other hand, any resolution of a municipal council granting any pay to an employee of the municipality on the assumption that the holder of the post in question discharged the similar duties as a corresponding post in the government service will be subject to the approval of the authority declared to be competent under section 76 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act. Sub-clause (5) of the aforesaid order, no doubt, states that the service conditions and benefits of the Maharashtra Civil Service Rules modified from time to time issued in that behalf by the government would mutatis mutandis apply to a municipal employee. Therefore, it would be logical to hold that if a municipal employee is discharging the same duties in respect of the post of a corresponding employee of the government, then the municipal council would be entitled to grant him the pay scale as is available to his counter part in the government. But that requires certain determination of facts and on the basis of circular ipso facto the relief could not have been granted. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct that the High Court may re-hear the writ petition filed before it being W.P. no. 250/94, after giving opportunity of hearing to the state government. The state government is directed to file its counter affidavit within six weeks from today. Failure on the part of the state government to file its counter affidavit within the said period, will entitle the High Court to dispose it of on the materials available on record. The High Court would do well in disposing of the matter within three months.
3. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
C.A. No. 649/97
4. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.4.1996 passed by the High Court of Bombay.
5. It transpires that the employees of a particular municipality filed a complaint before the industrial tribunal claiming certain relief. Before the industrial tribunal, the state government never filed any written statement or objected to the reliefs prayed for. The tribunal, on the basis of the materials before it, passed an award. The award was sought to be assailed before the High Court by filing a writ petition. In the meanwhile, a contempt application appears to have been filed before the High Court for non-enforcement of the award passed by the industrial tribunal. Even though notice was issued in the contempt proceeding, the state government chose not to file any show cause in the matter. The High Court, therefore, by the impugned order dismissed the writ petition filed, assailing the legality of the award of the tribunal. In view of the gross laches on the part of the state government, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
