F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.: Nerkundram Panchayat, Villivakkam represented by its President is the appellant herein. The appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.4.1999 made in W.P.No.1609 of 1998. The first respondent herein was appointed by the then Special Officer of the appellant as a Scavenger Supervisor by order dated 31.12.1992 on daily wage of Rs.15. The appointment took effect from 1.1.1993. It is not in dispute that upto 10.4.1998, the appellant was continuously employed as Scavenger Supervisor. It is a matter of record that the first respondent was paid a sum of Rs.1,740 by way of monthly wages in the year 1996 and that subsequently as disclosed in the acquittance register produced before the learned single Judge relating to the month of January, 1998, he was paid Rs.2,052 per month. According to the first respondent, on 10.4.1998, the President of the appellant board orally terminated his services, that when he approached the District Collector, by proceedings dated 8.6.1998, the District Collector, Thiruvallur advised the appellant to permit the first respondent to continue to work in the post in which he was employed prior to his non-employment. A perusal of the Proceedings dated 8.6.1998 also discloses that the District Collector, Thiruvallur, based on the inspection report of the Additional Block Development Officer dated 28.4.1998, found that he first respondent was appointed as Scavenger Supervisor, that no proper order of termination was issued demoting the first respondent from the said post, that even if any such demotion was to be effected, the appellant should have obtained prior permission from the Collector as Inspector of Panchayats as provided under Sec.101 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act and therefore the first respondent should be permitted to work in the original post in which he was employed prior to his non-employment. 2. The proceedings of the District Collector, Thiruvallur, dated 8.6.1998 was not implemented by the appellant. On the other hand, by a communication dated 25.6.1998, the appellant took the stand that the first respondent was employed only on daily wage basis, he was never terminated from the services of the appellant, that he would be allowed to perform his duties by the appellant and that it was not known how the order of appointment dated 31.12.1992 came to be issued when there was no post of Scavenger Supervisor in existence in the appellant board. The appellant board also questioned the competence of the District Collector in stating about the non-compliance of Sec.101 of the Act. It was the stand of the appellant that he Sec.101 was not applicable to persons who were employed on daily wage basis. Since the first respondent was not permitted to work as a Scavenger Supervisor, he approached the District Collector Thiruvallur once again in his representation dated 2.7.1998. Subsequently, when the first respondent preferred W.P.No.10961 of 1998 for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to the appellant to implement the order of the District Collector, Thiruvallur, dated 8. 6.1998, the learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 30.7.1998 issued a writ of mandamus. The District Collector, Thiruvallur by its proceedings dated 24.8.1998 without specifically stating as to in what manner or in which post the first respondent should be permitted to join in the appellant board, gave directions to enable the first respondent to join duty in the appellant board. A reading of the said Proceedings dated 28.4.1998 discloses that the District Collector, Thiruvallur virtually passed an unworkable order by merely observing that the first respondent was found to have been employed on daily wage basis from 1.1.1993, that his appointment was not on a permanent basis and that service rules would be applicable only to regular employees, and also observed therein that there is no order issued by the Appellant ousting the first respondent from its service. Ultimately the District Collector observed that as there was no objection raised at the instance of the appellant, the first respondent was being directed to join duty in the office of the appellant. It is relevant to note at his juncture that earlier in the proceedings dated 8.6.1998, the very same District Collector, Thiruvallur was of the firm view that the first respondent was found to have been appointed as Scavenger Supervisor by order dated 31.12.1992 and if at all the appellant wanted to demote the first respondent to any other post, necessary permission ought to have been obtained from him in the capacity as the competent authority namely, the Inspector of the Panchayats as prescribed under Sec.101 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. Apparently, the District Collector, Thiruvallur with a view to comply with the directions of the learned single Judge made in his order dated 30.7.1998 in W.P.No.10961 of 1998 appears to have passed the above said order dated 24.8.1998. 3. After the order dated 24.8.1998 of the District Collector, when the first respondent approached the appellant seeking employment as a Scavenger supervisor, again he was not permitted to join. It was in those circumstances, the first respondent once again came forward with the present petition in W.P.No.16091 of 1998 which was disposed of by the learned single Judge on 16.4.1999 giving directions to the appellant as well as the respondents 3 and 4 to appoint the first respondent permanently as a supervisor for Scavengers. The learned Judge directed them to comply with the above directions within four weeks. The appellant has also produced the proceedings dated 20.11.1995 of the Collector of Chingleput, M.G.R. District at Kancheepuram along with certain annexures showing the rates of wages payable for the full time and part time meneals paid from contingencies and daily rate of wages payable for the financial year 1995 to 1998. The said proceedings seem to have issued pursuant to the increase in dearness allowance announced by the Government from time to time. Various categories of posts available in the panchayat have been mentioned in the three annexures enclosed along with the said proceedings. In Annexure I Sl.No.2 relates to Scavenger Male-Female and the total emoluments have been shown as Rs.1,390. Sl.No.3 refers to sweeper for whom also, the total emoluments are shown as Rs.1,390. Sl.No.4 related to Scavenger-cum-Sweeper for whom also, the total emoluments are shown as Rs.1,390. Sl.No.29 relates to meneals namely Sweeper Scavenger for whom also, total emoluments are shown as Rs.1,390. Sl.No.31 refers to sweeper (Maestri) for whom also, the total emoluments are shown as Rs.1,390. In annexure II which stated to be in respect of part time meneals paid from contingencies, the first category is related to Scavenger male or female mentioning the total emoluments as 95. Sl.No.2 of annexure II relates to sweeper for whom also, the total emoluments shown as Rs.95. In annexure III which is stated to be the statement in respect of daily wages for meneals Sl.No.34 refers to sweeper with rate of wages fixed at Rs.58. 4. Sl.No.2 of annexure II relates to sweeper for whom also, the total emoluments shown as Rs.95. In annexure III which is stated to be the statement in respect of daily wages for meneals Sl.No.34 refers to sweeper with rate of wages fixed at Rs.58. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant board in W.P.No.16091 of 1998, the appellant contended that the first respondent was not a regularly appointed employee on permanent basis, that he was not governed by any rules, that there was no post of Sanitary Supervisor, and that the services of the N.M.Rs. was being utilised for various purposes like cleaning and other sanitary work and that they cannot stick to any particular post. It was also contended that when the first respondent was permitted to join as a sanitary worker, he declined to join the said post on the ground that he should be provided with the work of sanitary supervisor. With regard to the position that the first respondent was in receipt of payment of Rs.1,740 per month as salary payable to the post of supervisor for scavengers as against a sum of Rs.1,440 per month paid to the Scavengers and also the enhancement in the said payment of salary in respect of Supervisor for Scavengers in January, 1998 to the level of Rs.2,052 there is no denial with regard to the rate or payment actually received by the first respondent. Even in this writ appeal either in the grounds of appeal or in the affidavit filed in support of the application for interim stay made in C.M.P.No.7399 of 1999, there is no averment relating to the wages actually paid to the first respondent. 5. In the above stated circumstances, as against the grievance of the first respondent that irrespective of the specific order of appointment dated 31.12.1992 posting him as a supervisor for scavengers after continuous working for more than five years, the appellant abruptly terminated his services with effect from 10.4.1998, the appellant would contend as there was no post of Supervisor for Scavengers, the first respondent could be employed only as a Scavenger and since the first respondent declined the offer of the appellant, the direction of the learned single Judge in directing the appellant to reinstate the first respondent as a supervisor for scavengers is liable to be set aside. 6. 6. In considering the above controversy, Sec.101 which corresponds to Sec.57 of the earlier Act requires to be pursued. The said Section deals with the sanction of the Panchayat or Panchayat Union Council to be obtained for all proposals for fixing or altering the number, designation and grades of its officers and servants and the salaries fees and allowances payable to them. Sub-sec.(2) stipulates that such proposals should be taken into consideration by the Panchayat or Panchayats Union Council only at the instance of the Executive Authority or the Commissioner and thereafter the sanction of the proposal with or without modification could be made. Sub-sec.(2) stipulates that no proposal adversely affecting any officer or servant of the Panchayat or Panchayats Union Council who has been in permanent service in the Panchayat or Panchayat Union Council for more than five years and was drawing a salary of not less than Rs.500 per mensem shall be considered except at a special meeting convened for that purpose and such a proposal should not be given effect to unless assented by atleast one half of the members of the Panchayat or Panchayats Union Council. Sub-sec.(3) is a non-obstante clause which vests with the Inspector in the case of Panchayat to have a power to fix or alter the number, designation, grade and the salaries, fees and allowances payable to the officers and servants of any Panchayat or any class of such officers and servants and it is not open to the Panchayat to vary the number, designations, grades, salaries fees or allowances so fixed or alter except with the previous sanction of the Inspector in the case of Panchayats. Sub-sec.(3) has got thus overriding effect on Sub-secs.(1) and (2) of Sec.101. A reading of Sec.101 shows that in the case of servant of a panchayat who had been in the permanent service for more than five years and was drawing salary not less than Rs.500 per month, any proposal adversely affecting the service conditions cannot be made except in the manner stipulated therein. Further any such proposal even with regard to the fixing or altering the number, designations and grades of its officers and servants could be taken into consideration only at the instance of the Executive Authority or the Commissioner of the Panchayat or Panchayat Union Council. 7. Further any such proposal even with regard to the fixing or altering the number, designations and grades of its officers and servants could be taken into consideration only at the instance of the Executive Authority or the Commissioner of the Panchayat or Panchayat Union Council. 7. In the case on hand indisputably, the first respondent was appointed as a Supervisor for Scavengers in the order of appointment dated 31.12.1992 which describe the job in vernacular as Literal translation of such post can also be equated to sweeper (Maestri) which is mentioned in Sl.No.31 of annexure II of the proceedings dated 20.11.1995 of the Collector of Chingleput, MGR District, Kancheepuram. As per the said annexure, the salary of the sweeper (maestri) is stated to be Rs.1,390 in the financial year 1995-1998 commencing from 1.4.1995 to 30.5.1996. The Acquittance Register of the appellant establishment for the month of June, 1996 disclosed that the first respondent was designated as i.e., Sweeper Maestri and the salary drawn as Rs.1,740 as on 9.7.1996. The extract of the said Register also discloses that the ordinary sweepers were being paid a sum of Rs.1,440 per month as on that day. The acquaintance register for the month of July, 1996 also reflects the same position. Based on the acquittance register placed before the learned single Judge relating to the month of January, 1998, it transpires that the first respondent who was designated az Supervisor for Scavengers was in receipt of a sum of Rs.2,052 by way of salary. 8. The appellant/Panchayat Board which was hitherto under the control of erstwhile special officer came to be managed by elected members consisting the Board of Directors. The board came into existence on 25.10.1996. The various materials placed before the Court disclose that the denial of employment to the first respondent occurred only on 10.4.1998. Therefore even after the appellant board came into existence, the employment status of the first respondent either as Supervisor for Scavengers or Sweeper (maestri) was allowed to continue for more than one and half years. It was only thereafter the appellant seemed to have prevented the first respondent from working in the so called post of Supervisor for Scavengers or Sweeper (maestri) commencing from the date of appointment namely 31.12.1992. It was only thereafter the appellant seemed to have prevented the first respondent from working in the so called post of Supervisor for Scavengers or Sweeper (maestri) commencing from the date of appointment namely 31.12.1992. It is on record that the first respondent was in continuous employment in the post of Supervisor for Scavengers or Sweeper (Maestri) for a period of more than five years and that he was being paid on monthly rate of wages. Therefore it is too late in the day for the appellant to contend that the first respondent was employed only in the nominal Muster roll on a daily wage basis. The entries found in the acquaintance register maintained in the months of June and July, 1996 belie the said stand of the appellant. There is also another extract of the acquittance register produced in Court, the authenticity of the particulars contained therein not in serious dispute disclose that there was separate acquaintance register maintained in respect of persons employed on daily wage basis. In as much as those extracts related to the period June, 1966, if really the first respondent was working only on a daily wage basis as an N.M.R., it is not known why the appellant did not raise its little finger as to manner in which payment of salary was made to the first respondent, namely, on a monthly rate basis between the period October, 1996 and April, 1998, also providing for an increase in the rate of wages paid to him as between the year 1996 and 1998. In addition to that, the proceedings of the second respondent dated 8.6.1998 which was never challenged by the appellant make it clear that the first respondent was appointed as Supervisor for Scavengers by order dated 31.12.1992, that no orders were issued by the appellant seeking to demote the position of the first respondent from the said post to the post of ordinary Scavenger or Sweeper, especially having regard to the provisions contained in Sec.101 of the Act. Apparently, the second respondent passed orders holding the view that when the service conditions of the first respondent as now sought to be altered from the post of Supervisor for Scavengers to that of an ordinary Scavenger or Sweeper attracted the proviso to Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.101, as well as the non-obstante clause as contained in Sub-sec.(3) of Sec.101. Apparently, the second respondent passed orders holding the view that when the service conditions of the first respondent as now sought to be altered from the post of Supervisor for Scavengers to that of an ordinary Scavenger or Sweeper attracted the proviso to Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.101, as well as the non-obstante clause as contained in Sub-sec.(3) of Sec.101. When the said order came to be passed by the second respondent and by virtue of the said order, the appellant was obliged to continue the employment of the first respondent in the post in which he was originally employed, prior to the alleged denial of employment dated 10.4.1998, in our view, there is every justification for the learned single Judge for having issued the directions in his order dated 16.4.1998 made in W.P.No.16091 of 1998. Though it was vehemently contended on behalf of the appellant that there was no post of Supervisor for Scavengers, the order dated 31.12.1992 having been issued in vernacular which disclose that the appointment of the first respondent was to the post of it is hard to believe the version of the appellant on mere statement that there was no post of Supervisor for Scavengers as to sustain the claim of the first respondent as has been done by the learned single Judge. Even on equity when considered, we are of the view that at this distant point of time, the first respondent who was permitted to join as Supervisor either for Scavengers either for Scavengers or Sweepers and who was allowed to work in that post continuously for more than five years should not be non-suited solely on a slippery ground of the appellant that there was no such post existence in its office. We therefore find that there is absolutely no justifiable ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. The writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs. The appellant is directed to comply, with the order of the learned single Judge within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and also pay the costs of Rs.3,000 to the first respondent. Consequently, C.M.P. is closed.