Mathur, C.J. -- 1. All these batch of petitions mentioned in the schedule annexed herewith shall stand disposed of by this common opinion.

2. A reference has been made by the Chief Justice of this Court to this Full Bench to answer the question that whether the law laid down in the case of Dr. Vasant v. State of M.P. (1986 JLJ 115) is correct law or not. In Misc. Petition No. 180/89, it was prayed that section 58 (5) and (6) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, as amended by the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1982 (Act. No.5 of 1982) and the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 (Act. No.7 of 1988) may be declared ultra-vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

3. The petitioner-Indore Nagar Nigam Karamchari Congress, a registered representative body, has challenged the validity of the aforesaid provisions that an employee of the Municipal Corporation cannot be transferred from one to another Municipal Corporation, therefore, a validity of the aforesaid provision of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the' Act') has been challanged.

4. In order to appreciate the controversy it would be relevant to mention the relevant provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act. Sub-section (5) and (6) of section 58 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1982, read as under :-

"Sub-section (5) -- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any rules or bye-laws made thereunder, the State Government may, subject to the conditions specified in sub-section (6), transfer on deputation any officer or servant of a Municipal Corporation carrying a maximum scale of pay exceeding Rs. 400/- to any other Municipal Corporation and it shall not be necessary for the State Government to consult either the Corporation or the officer or servant concerned before passing an order of transfer on deputation under this sub-section."

"Sub-section (6) – The officer or servant transferred under sub-section (5) shall- (a) has his lien on the post held in the parent Corporation.

(b) not be put to disadvantageous position in respect of any allowance which he would have been entitled to, had he continued in the parent Corporation;

(c) be entitled to deputation allowance at such rate as the State Government by general order specify, and

(d) be governed by such other terms and conditions including disciplinary control as the State Government may, by general or special order, specify."

Thereafter, it was further amended by the Municipal Corporation Act, 1988. Sub-sections (5) and (6) of section 58 of the Act, 1988, which reads as under : --

"S.58. Appointment and Salary of Corporation Officers and Servants : --

(1)xxxxxxxxx

(2)xxxxxxxxx

(3)xxxxxxxxx

(4 )xxxxxxxxx

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any rules or bye laws made thereunder, the State Government may, subject to the conditions specified in sub-section (6), transfer on deputation any officer or servant of a Municipal Corporation to any other Municipal Corporation and it shall not be necessary for the State Government to consult either the Corporation or the officer or servant concerned before passing an order of transfer on deputation under this sub-section.

(6) The officer or servant transferred under sub-section (5) shall –

(a) have his lien on the post held in the parent Corporation;

(b) not be put to disadvantageous position in respect of any allowances which he would have been entitled to, had he continued in the parent Corporation;

(c) be entitled to deputation allowance at such rate as the State Government may by general order specify, and (d) be governed by such other terms and conditions including disciplinary control as the State Government may, by general or special order specify."

Prior to this, it was also amended by the Act No. 5/82. Since we are concerned with Amending Act of 7/88 by which these two provisions sub-section (5) and (6) were subst