Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1064 (MP)

C. P. Pandey v. State of M. P.

2012-10-16

R.S.JHA

body2012
Judgment R.S. Jha, J.;- 1. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the resolution of the respondent Municipal Corporation, Singrouli dated 27.8.2011 whereby it has been resolved that the petitioner, who was working on the post of Dy. Commissioner, shall not continue to do so on account of the fact that the post of Dy. Commissioner does not exist. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Director (Planning) in the Special Area Development Authority, Singrouli (hereinafter referred to as 'SADA') in the year 1981. It is stated that SADA was abolished in the year 1995 and all the assets and liabilities of the SADA were taken over by the Municipal Corporation, Singrouli which was subsequently constituted and, accordingly, the petitioner was absorbed in the services of the Municipal Corporation, Singrouli. It is stated that as there is no post of Assistant Director (Planning) in the setup of the Municipal Corporation, Singrouli and as the only equivalent post available in the Municipal Corporation, Singrouli is that of Dy. Commissioner, therefore, the petitioner was permitted to work on the post of Dy. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Singrouli and was continuing to do so but the respondent Mayor-in-Council has, on account of political pressure and reasons, passed the impugned resolution dated 27.8.2011, contrary to the resolution of the Corporation which is the highest body, to remove the petitioner from the post of Dy. Commissioner by coming up with an excuse that there is no post of Dy. Commissioner available in the set up of the Corporation and also on the ground that the petitioner is holding the charge of several posts as a result of which he as not able to discharge his duties. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no post, except the post of Dy. Commissioner in the establishment of the Municipal Corporation, Singrouli, equivalent to the pay status and authority of the post of Assistant Director (Planning) and it was under these circumstances that the petitioner was permitted to work as Dy. Commissioner, Muncipal Corporation, Singrouli by the resolution of the Corporation which has been sought to be nullified by the Mayor-in-Council which has no authority to do so. It is further stated that the proposal for creation of a post of Dy. Commissioner, Muncipal Corporation, Singrouli by the resolution of the Corporation which has been sought to be nullified by the Mayor-in-Council which has no authority to do so. It is further stated that the proposal for creation of a post of Dy. Commissioner in the Municipal Corporation, Singrouli to accommodate the petitioner has already been forwarded by the Municipal Corporation, Singrouli to the State Government on 13.7.2006 which is pending before the State and no decision thereon has been taken by the State till date. It is submitted that the respondent Corporation, without awaiting the decision of the aforesaid proposal by the Mayor-in-Council, is now proposing to remove the petitioner with a view to appoint respondent No. 6, who is the Office Superintendent, in place of the petitioner for the reasons best known to them on political grounds, which is contrary to law. 2. The learned counsel for respondent No. 3 Municipal Corporation, Singrouli does not oppose the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and infact supports the same. 3. The learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 & 5, per contra, submits that the post of Dy. Commissioner is not available in the establishment of the respondent Corporation. He further states that the petitioner is holding the charge of several posts as a result of which the functioning of the Corporation is effected. It is stated that under these circumstances, the impugned resolution has been passed by the Mayor-in-Council with a view to ensure proper functioning of the Corporation. The learned counsel further submits that in view of the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporations (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Servants) Rules, 2000, the post of Dy. Commissioner has to be filled up 50% by promotion and 50% by deputation and in such circumstances the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue as Dy. Commissioner and, accordingly, the impugned resolution has been passed by the authorities which cannot be found fault with. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. From a perusal of the petition and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties made before this Court, it is an admitted position that the resolution of the larger body, i.e. the Municipal Corporation, recommending creation of a post of Dy. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. From a perusal of the petition and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties made before this Court, it is an admitted position that the resolution of the larger body, i.e. the Municipal Corporation, recommending creation of a post of Dy. Commissioner to accommodate the petitioner is pending before the State Government and a decision thereon is yet to be taken by the State, which is the competent authority. 5. It is also clear by order dated 7.9.2011 that this Court has passed an interim order staying the operation of the impugned resolution dated 27.8.2011 and, therefore, the petitioner continues to work as Dy. Commissioner of the Corporation and in such circumstances the petition, filed by the petitioner, is disposed of with a direction to the State to consider and decide the resolution/request of the Municipal Corporation, Singrouli dated 13.7.2006 expeditiously, in accordance with law, as far as possible within a period of three months and till then the operation of the impugned resolution dated 27.8.2011 shall remain stayed and the petitioner shall be permitted to work as Dy. Commissioner in Municipal Corporation, Singrouli. To enable the authority of the State to do so, a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition and the return and documents be furnished to the concerned authority of the State by the petitioner within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and therefore the State would be at liberty to decide the matter taking all facts and facets into consideration and thereafter either accept or reject the resolution of the Municipal Corporation, Singrouli by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. With the aforesaid direction, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to the costs.