JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Md. B. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bora, the learned Standing Counsel, GDD & GMC for all the respondents. 2. By this writ petition the petitioner has sought the implementation of the notification dated 17.06.2014 (Annexure-A), wherein the supplementary report of the 4th Assam State Finance Commission (Finance Commission) on being approved by the State Cabinet, the staffing pattern of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) has been notified. 3. Facts of the case may briefly be stated. The Government of Assam in exercise of its power conferred Article 243-Y of the Constitution of India made a reference to the Finance Commission constituted under Article 243-I to examine the feasibility of providing the pay scale enjoyed by the Government employees to the employees under the GMC amongst others. The Finance Commission submitted its report in the month of April, 2012 recommending the pay scale of Government employees be made applicable to the employees of the GMC while also providing for the staffing pattern. The recommendation came to be accepted by the State Cabinet and as a result, the notification dated 17.06.2014 was issued. 4. Mr. A. Dasgupta, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that although the notification was issued on 17.06.2014, the respondent authorities are yet to carry out compliance of the notification. He submits that in so far as the petitioner is cornered, the prayer is confined only to filling up of the 1440 posts of sweepers approved by the State Government as mentioned in the notification dated 17.06.2014. 5. Mr. A. Dasgupta while submitting that the notification dated 17.06.2014 should be implemented in so far as the posts of sweepers are concerned, has led the Court to Article 243-Y of the Constitution of India which provides that the Finance Commission constituted under Article 243-I shall also review the financial position of the municipalities and to make recommendations to the Governor the principles which should be governed the distribution between the State and municipalities of the net proceeds of the taxes, duties, tolls and fees leviable by the State and also the grants-in-aid to the Municipalities from the Consolidated Fund of the State amongst others. As per the said provision, the Governor would be required to cause every recommendation made by the Commission be laid before the legislature of the State. 6. He has further drawn the attention of this Court to Article 243-W of the Constitution whereby the powers, authority and responsibility of the municipalities etc has been laid down. Mr. A. Dasgupta submits that since the applicability of pay scale given to the State Government employees for the employees under the GMC was also examined by the Finance Commission on being referred and since, the recommendation was accepted and a notification on that account issued on 17.06.2014, the respondent authorities should be directed to implement the same. He submits that in so far as the issue of provincialisation of the posts under GMC is concerned, since it is an institution of self governance, it is up-to them to accept or reject the provincialisation mentioned in the notification dated 17.06.2014. Therefore, irrespective of the provincialisation mentioned in the notification, it would be incumbent upon the respondent authorities concerned to fill up the 1440 posts of sweepers. 7. Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submits that the GMC is already over burdened with staffs and therefore, the General Council of the GMC vide its resolution No.3 dated 29.10.2014 constituted a committee to examine and submit their views on the staffing pattern and in the meantime to continue with the existing schedule of posts. He submits that in this regard, a meeting was also held with the 4 (four) Unions of the GMC on 28.08.2015 and it was decided that the staffing pattern notified by the State Government should be modified. The matter again came up for discussion in the General Council’s Meeting held on 16.09.2015 wherein, it was decided that the Commissioner, GMC, be requested to move the State Government for necessary steps to modify the staffing pattern. Accordingly, the State Government was informed by the Commissioner, GMC on 01.10.2015. 8. Mr. D. Saikia by referring to the meeting minutes dated 28.08.2015 submits that in fact amongst the officers and members present in the said meeting the General Secretary of the petitioner’s Union who had sworn the affidavit in the writ petition was also present. Accordingly, the State Government was informed by the Commissioner, GMC on 01.10.2015. 8. Mr. D. Saikia by referring to the meeting minutes dated 28.08.2015 submits that in fact amongst the officers and members present in the said meeting the General Secretary of the petitioner’s Union who had sworn the affidavit in the writ petition was also present. He, therefore, submits that while the modification of the staffing pattern is under consideration with the participation of the General Secretary of the petitioner Union, seeking the implementation of the notification dated 17.06.2014 is untenable. He submits that the municipality being an institution in itself with the powers of self-governance in terms of the Article 243 of the Constitution of India cannot be bound by the dictates of the State Government. Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Senior Counsel also by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that a legal opinion was sought on the notification dated 17.06.2014 and based on which the Guwahati Development Department (GDD) has decided to modify the notification words “in principal, provincialisation of”. In fact, in this regard a Draft Cabinet Memorandum and Office Memorandum have already been prepared and the view of all the concerned departments is only awaited. Once the view is obtained, the Draft Cabinet Memorandum would be placed before the State Cabinet for its approval and on approval, the final notification will be issued. He submits that the reason why such modification has been necessitated is only due to the autonomy of the municipality as provided under Article 243 wherein the decision in respect of provincialisation of posts would lie with the municipality. Pending such modification, the notification cannot be implemented at this stage. 9. Mr. D. Saikia in support of his contention referred to the following decisions of the Apex Court :- (i) Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and Others, (2008) 10 SCC 1 (ii) Union Public Service Commission vs. Dr. Jamuna Kurup and Ors, (2008) 11 SCC 10 10. By referring to the case of Dayanand and Others (Supra), Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Senior Counsel submits that creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres etc are matters which fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. Jamuna Kurup and Ors, (2008) 11 SCC 10 10. By referring to the case of Dayanand and Others (Supra), Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Senior Counsel submits that creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres etc are matters which fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. Although, it may not be immune from the judicial review, but Court will always be extremely cautious with circumspect in dealing with the exercise of discretion by the employer. The question as to whether a particular post is necessary is a matter depending upon the exigency of the situation and administrative necessity and therefore, with limited materials, Court would not decide such issues by itself. 11. Mr. D. Saikia, therefore, submits that in the instant case, the respondent GMC being the employer, it is well within its rights to decide how and in what manner the recommendations of the Finance Commission is to be implemented. 12. By referring to the case of Dr. Jamuna Kuup and Other (Supra), Mr. D. Saikia submits that the term “employee” would necessarily include any person employed on salary or wage by an employer. In short, the same would include both permanent and temporary, regular or short term, contractual or adhoc employees. Such was the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Municipal Corporation even though the definition of the word ‘“employee” has not been defined in the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. 13. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have also perused the materials available on record. The autonomy of the Municipality i.e., GMC in this case is not in dispute. In fact, Article 243 part – IX A of the Constitution deals with Municipalities wherein the powers, authority and responsibility amongst others have been clearly provided. The admitted position in the instant case is that a reference was made by the State to examine the applicability of pay scale to the employees of the GMC like that of the State Government employees and on such examination, the recommendation have been made by the Finance Commissions which in turn has been accepted by the State Cabinet. Upon such acceptance the notification dated 17.06.2014 was accordingly issued. Upon such acceptance the notification dated 17.06.2014 was accordingly issued. From the stand taken by the respondent authorities, besides the non-acceptable of the staffing pattern as has been notified, the necessity to delete words “in principal, provincialisation of”, the recommendation of the Finance Commission has not been rejected. 14. Under the Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971, more particularly at Part-VIII of Chapter-XXIX, the Government has the power of supervision and guidance in the functioning of the Corporation and therefore, the role of the State Government cannot be ignored. However, since the GMC by taking to confidence the 4 Trade Unions have decided to modify the staffing pattern as recommended by the Finance Commission, it will only be appropriate for the competent authority to have a say in the matter. 15. Although vide order dated 29.07.2015, Court directed the respondent authorities to take prompt and immediate steps for filling up of the 1440 posts of sweepers in accordance with law, but due to the fact that the steps as can be noticed has been undertaken by the respondents, I am of the considered opinion that under the circumstances, the petitioner Union cannot be said to have a vested right to insist upon filling up of the 1440 posts of sweepers. At the same time, since the respondent authorities have indicated that the recommendation of the Finance Commission is in the process of active consideration for final notification, it would also be incumbent upon them to take appropriate decision at the earliest. 16. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No cost.