SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Raj) 1454

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
AJAY RASTOGI, DEEPAK MAHESHWARI, JJ.
Hitendra Shrangi S/o Shri Murlidhar Shrangi - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
D.B Civil Writ Petition No. 10594, 10595, 10596, 10223, 10897, 11808, 11809 of 2015, 14730, 14862, 14869, 15080, 15372, 16757, 17048, 17096, 17097 of 2016
Decided On : 03-11-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sh. Rajendra Soni Adv., Sh. S.L Songara Adv., Sh. S.L Kumawat Adv., Sh. Lokesh Sharma Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Addl. Adv. Gen. With Sh. Surya Pratap Singh Adv., Sh. Manu Bhargava GC.

Sec. 336 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, which empowers the State Government to transfer employees of subordinate, ministerial, and class-IV services from one Municipality to another, is constitutional and valid. It does not violate the mandate of self-government for municipalities established under Art. 243-Q of the Constitution, as it contains a proviso that protects the service conditions and promotion rights of transferred employees.

Headnote:

RAJASTHAN MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 2009 - SEC. 336 - TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES - VALIDITY - CONSTITUTIONALITY - INTER-MUNICIPALITY TRANSFERS - SERVICE CONDITIONS - PROMOTION - LIEN - SECTION 336 OF THE ACT, 2009 IS CONSTITUTIONAL AND VALID. IT EMPOWERS THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO TRANSFER EMPLOYEES OF SUBORDINATE, MINISTERIAL, AND CLASS-IV SERVICES FROM ONE MUNICIPALITY TO ANOTHER, WITH THEIR LIEN AND PROMOTION RIGHTS PROTECTED IN THEIR PARENT MUNICIPALITY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, members of the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate & Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963, and Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV Service) Rules, 1964, challenged the validity of Sec. 336 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, which authorizes the State Government to transfer employees from one Municipality to another. They argued that such transfers violated the mandate of the Constitution, particularly after the 74th Amendment Act, 1992, which established municipalities as institutions of self-government.

Finding of the Court:

The Court upheld the validity of Sec. 336 of the Act, 2009, finding it to be analogous to Sec. 310-A of the repealed Act, 1959, which had been previously upheld by the Court in Ramesh Chand Kachhawaha v. State of Rajasthan. The Court held that the State Government has the legislative competence to enact such a provision under Entry 5 of List-II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.

Issues: 1. Whether Sec. 336 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, is ultra vires the Constitution and violates the mandate of self-government for municipalities established under Art. 243-Q of the Constitution. 2. Whether the judgment of the Apex Court in General Officer Commanding-In-Chief v. Dr. Subhash Chandra Yadav applies to the instant case, where the statute explicitly confers power on the State Government to transfer employees from one Municipality to another.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court distinguished the instant case from General Officer Commanding-In-Chief v. Dr. Subhash Chandra Yadav, holding that the judgment was inapplicable because Sec. 280 of the Cantonment Act, which was at issue in that case, did not confer express power to transfer employees from one Board to another. In contrast, Sec. 336 of the Act, 2009, explicitly grants such power to the State Government. 2. The Court also noted that Sec. 336 of the Act, 2009, contains a proviso that protects the service conditions and promotion rights of employees transferred from one Municipality to another, ensuring that their rights are not prejudiced.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the validity of Sec. 336 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. However, the Court clarified that if any occasion arises in the future, the authority may take a fresh decision regarding transfers in exigency of service or in the interest of administration, in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY RASTOGI, J.

1. The present batch of writ petitioners are members of the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate & Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963 (“Rules, 1963”) & Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV Service) Rules, 1964 (“Rules, 1964”) and primarily aggrieved by the order of their inter transfer from one Municipality to another questioning validity of Sec.336 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (“Act, 2009”) which authorizes the State Government to transfer any officer or servant of a Municipality who is member of subordinate service, ministerial service or class IV service under Rules, 1963 or Rules, 1964 respectively from the service of one Municipality to the services of another Municipality but with a rider that lien of the officer or servant so transferred shall remain in the parent Municipality and he shall be considered for further promotion whenever a consideration for promotion to the higher post in his cadre is made in the parent Municipality under the Rules, 1963 or Rules, 1964 respectively.

2. At the outset it may be noticed that there was analogous provision which authorizes the State Government to transfer any member of subordinate service, ministerial service, class-IV Service from one Municipality to the other u/S.310-A of the Rajasthan Municipality Act, 1959 (“Act, 1959”) which was inserted by Rajasthan Municipality (Amendment) Act, 1991, at the same time there was a corresponding provision R.20 under the Rules, 1964 for transfer of an employee who is member of Class-IV Service from one Board to the other and other corresponding provision R.38 of the Rules, 1963 for transfer of an employee who is member of Subordinate & Ministerial Service from one Board to the another.

3. At one point of time, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chagan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 (1) RLR page 95 struck down R.38 of the Rules, 1963 and taking note thereof Sec.310A was later inserted under the Act, 1959 by Raj. Act No. 4 of 1991 conferring power to the State Government to transfer a member of subordinate service, ministerial service or class-IV Service from one Board to the other and in consequence R.38 was inserted the Rules, 1963.

4. Sec. 310-A of the Act, 1959 read with R.38 of the Rules, 1963 sub sequently came to be examined by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Ramesh Chand Kachhawaha v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1994 (1) WLC (Raj.) 702 upholding legislative power of the Government enacting R.310-A under the Act, 1959 which confers power on the Government to transfer a member of subordinate service, ministerial service, class-IV Service from one Board to the other and we consider it appropriate to quote the relevant para of the judgment as under:—

“We are of the opinion that in view of the specific power of transfer under Sec.310-A and the rules made under Sec.297 the said observations will not be applicable. In Sec.280(2)(c) of the Cantonments Act there was no specific power whereas in Sec.310-A specific power has been conferred on the State Government to transfer a member of subordinate service, ministerial or class IV service from one Municipal Board to another. We have already said that it can hardly be disputed that Sec.310-A of the Act was enacted by legislature in view of the powers conferred on it under Entry 5 of List-II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.

5. We are therefore of the opinion that it is in exercise of the legislative powers of the State Government that statutory provision of Sec.310-A has been made in the Act and under the said statutory provision, power can be conferred to transfer the members of subordinate service, ministerial service and class IV service from one Municipal Board to another Municipal Board.”

5. It may be relevant to note that after the Act, 1959 came to be replaced by Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, Sec. 336 which is corresponding to Sec. 310-A of the Act, 1959 confers power to the State Government to



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top