1. Merger of gram panchayats into municipal corporation — Claim for absorption as regular employees under Section 493 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. (Para 3 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 474
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. Bopanna, Sanjay Kumar, JJ.
Solapur Municipal Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Shankarrao Govindrao Patil and others Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 9127-9132 of 2018 with Civil Appeal No. 9133 of 2018
Decided On : 15-05-2024
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Mr. Suhaskumar Kadam, Adv., M/S. Black & White Solicitors, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv., Dr. R. R. Deshpande, AOR Mr. Dhruv Tank, Adv., Mr. Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Adv., Mr. Bhagwant Deshpande, Adv., Ms. Prachiti Deshpande, Adv., Ms. Priyanka Deshpande, Adv., Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv., Mr. Akshay Kapoor, Adv., Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv., Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv., Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv., Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv., Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv., Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.
For the Appellant : Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Mr. Suhaskumar Kadam, Adv., M/S. Black & White Solicitors, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv., Dr. R. R. Deshpande, AOR Mr. Dhruv Tank, Adv., Mr. Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Adv., Mr. Bhagwant Deshpande, Adv., Ms. Prachiti Deshpande, Adv., Ms. Priyanka Deshpande, Adv., Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv., Mr. Akshay Kapoor, Adv., Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv., Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv., Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv., Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv., Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv., Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for proper consideration and examination of new documentary evidence by the High Court in determining the employment status of the respondents.
Headnote:
EMPLOYMENT STATUS - Municipal Corporation - Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, Section 493(5)(c) - The court discussed the employment status of the respondents in the service of Majarewadi Gram Panchayat and the applicability of Section 493(5)(c) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. The court highlighted the significance of the respondents' regular employment status and the interpretation of the statutory provisions in determining their entitlement to protection under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were filed by Solapur Municipal Corporation against the judgment allowing writ petitions related to the regularization of employees from merged gram panchayats. The issue was the employment status of the respondents and the applicability of statutory provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the High Court had not considered new documents related to the employment status of the respondents and remanded the matter for reconsideration, emphasizing the need for proper verification and examination of the new evidence by the High Court.
Issues: The main issue was the employment status of the respondents and the interpretation of statutory provisions under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the matter needed to be reconsidered by the High Court in light of new documents and that the entire case was left open for adjudication afresh by the High Court.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, setting aside the previous judgment and remanding the matter to the High Court for reconsideration. The High Court was requested to give the case due priority and dispose of it expeditiously.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether employees were regular servants of the gram panchayat entitled to statutory absorption or daily wage workers regularized later by the corporation. (Para 3 , 8 )
3. Determination of employment status requires minute verification of conflicting resolutions and appointment orders, which is more appropriate for the High Court than the appellate court. (Para 6 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
4. When new documentary evidence fundamentally alters the factual basis of employment status, the matter should be remanded for detailed verification by the lower court. (Para 12 , 13 )
5. Appeals allowed — Judgments set aside — Matter remanded to the High Court for fresh adjudication in light of new documentary evidence. (Para 14 )
6. Does the protection of Clause 5, Appendix IV of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, apply to all employees of a merged local authority?
No, the protection applies specifically to officers and servants in the employ of the municipality or local authority immediately before the appointed day. The court emphasized that the actual employment status (regular versus daily wage) is critical to determining eligibility for such statutory protection. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 )
7. How should a court handle new documentary evidence produced for the first time during an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution?
While ordinarily not allowed at the last stage, if the evidence is crucial to the rights of workmen and requires minute verification and examination, the court may remand the matter to the High Court for fresh adjudication rather than undertaking the task itself. (Para 12 , 13 )
8. Does the government sanction of posts automatically prove the regular employment status of employees from a merged entity?
No, the court observed that the mere sanction of posts to accommodate employees does not automatically prove they were regular employees of the previous authority; their specific status at the time of merger must be established through evidence. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 )
1. Solapur Municipal Corporation, Solapur, preferred six appeals aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.07.2013 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in effect, allowing Writ Petition Nos. 197 of 2012, 2011 of 2003 and 2432 of 2003, and also the later order dated 08.08.2014 passed by the Division Bench, dismissing its review petitions filed in the aforestated three writ petitions. Thereafter, another Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay followed the judgment dated 31.07.2013 and allowed W.P. No. 2463 of 2010 filed by another employee similarly situated to the petitioners in the other three writ petitions on 09.03.2017. Assailing this order, Solapur Municipal Corporation filed Civil Appeal No. 9133 of 2018.
2. By order dated 24.04.2015, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned judgment dated 31.07.2013 till the next date of hearing. Thereafter, while granting leave on 24.08.2018, the interim order was made absolute.
3. The issue for consideration in these appeals is as to the status of the respondents herein, viz., the petitioners in the four writ petitions before the High Court, who were engaged in the service of Majarewadi Gram Panchayat, which was merged with Solapur Municipal Corporation (hereinafter, ‘the Corporation’) along with ten other gram panchayats with effect from 05.05.1992. On 25.03.2003, the respondents herein, along with others, were regularized in the service of the Corporation with effect from 01.02.2003. Their claim before the High Court, however, was that they should be treated as having been absorbed in the service of the Corporation from 05.05.1992 itself, in view of the provisions of Section 493 (5)(c) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. On the other hand, the Corporation contended that they were continued on daily wage basis till 01.02.2003 and, therefore, their employment from 05.05.1992 could not be treated as regular service.
4. The Division Bench placed reliance on the affidavit filed by a Section Officer of the Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra, confirming that 300 posts had been sanctioned in the Corporation to accommodate the employees of the erstwhile gram panchayats which had merged with it from 05.05.1992, and held that it followed therefrom that the employment of such persons by the Corporation stood regularized with effect from 05.05.1992. The Division Bench, accordingly, disposed of the three writ petitions directing that the services rendered by the writ petitioners before 05.05.1992 with the gram panchayat till 05.05.1992 shall be treated as regular service rendered to the Corporation; that the services rendered by them from 05.05.1992 till 01.02.2003 shall also be deemed to be regular service rendered to the Corporation; and that, in view of the above, all service benefits as well as retirement benefits should be extended to them, on the footing that the services rendered by them from their respective dates of appointment by the gram panchayat till 01.02.2003 shall be deemed to be services rendered to the Corporation. The Corporation, thereupon, preferred review petitions but the same were dismissed by the Division Bench on 08.08.2014. The said order reflects that the Bench found no error apparent on the face of the record, warranting review of its judgment, and dismissed the review petitions. The order passed in the fourth writ petition thereafter was on the same lines as the earlier judgment.
5. The main issue for consideration before us is as to the employment status of the respondents herein in the service of Majarewadi Gram Panchayat. Pertinent to note, the respondents claim to be the regular employees of the said gram panchayat as on the appointed date, i.e., 05.05.1992. If so, they would be entitled to claim the benefit of Section 493 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hitherto, known as the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949). Section 493 states t
