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

1985 Supreme(MP) 484

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
G. L. Oza, C.J. and B. M. Lal, J.
VASANT WAMAN MAHAJAN
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided On : Oct 04,1985

Advocates Appeared:
A.S.KHASKALAM, M.V.TAMSKAR, Y.S.Dharmadhikari,

Headnote:(1) Government Servants-transfer-purpose and object of.

       It is settled law that transfer is a necessary implication of service and in the exigencies of public administration transfer is made so that a Government servant who is known for his efficient work, should not only by rendering his efficient services, extend benefit to the persons residing in a particular locality or region, but should also render his services to the person belonging to any corner of the State and the people must get advantage of the best services. [Para 10

       Transfer of permanent employee and consequent transfer of his lien cannot be challenged when his transferee post does not carry less pay, even if such transfer materially affects the chances for promotion. [Para 14

       (2) Constitution of India-Entry 5, List II, Schedule VII-State Legislature has Power to enact and pass laws relating to Municipal Corporation.

       (3) Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1982 (M. P.)-S. 1-is not ultra vires.

       The State Legislature vide Entry No. 5 of list II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, gets jurisdiction to enact and pass such law in respect of Municipal Corporation, which also confers ancillary powers to lay down the condition of services of Corporation employees. Therefore, it cannot be said that the State Legislature, while enacting Act No.5 of 1982, thereby adding sub-sections (5) and (6) in section 58 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, In any manner, have acted beyond its legislative competence. [Para 11

       (4) Constitution of India-Arts.-14 & 16-reasonable classification extent of.

       While testing any case of discrimination under Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, it must be seen whether any order passed either by the State Government or by any public sector, relating to the public employment, has rational and reasonable classification and if the order impugned comes within the purview of reasonable or rational classification, the same could not be said to be violative of Constitution of India. [Para 13

       (5) Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (M. P.)-S. 58 (5) & (6)-the sub-sections are not ultra vires the Constitution. [Para 14

       

JUDGMENT :

( 1. ) THIS is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india by which the petitioner who was appointed as Assistant Health Officer, Municipal corporation, Indore, challenges his transfer order from Municipal Corporation Indore to Municipal Corporation Ujjain, seeking relief to the effect that his transfer order contained in Document-8, be quashed on the ground that the provisions of sub-sections (5) and (6) of section 58 of Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the act) be declared ultra vires of the Constitution and, therefore, by issuing a writ in the nature of prohibition, the provisions of sub-sections (5) and (6) of section 58 of the act, be not given effect to.

( 2. ) IN short, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Assistant Health officer in the scale of pay Rs. 500 to 1150 with effect from 28-4-75 vide Order No. 30 dated 26-4-75 (Document No. 2) with all other Municipal Corporation Service benefits. The petitioners appointment was made by the respondent No. 2, Municipal corporation, Indore after obtaining the concurrence for appointment from the respondent No. 1, the State of Madhya Pradesh vide Memo. No. 1561-18-A-75 dated 18-4-1975. This appointment was on ad hoc basis. However, after the advertisement of the post by the Public Service Commission the petitioner was selected by the Commission and as such his appointment to the post of the Assistant Health Officer, Municipal corporation, Indore was regularised by order dated 29-3-1977. After his selection by the public Service Commission, the petitioner was appointed on probation by order dated 27-8-77. However, it is alleged that the petitioners work being satisfactory and commendable, therefore, by order dated 5-4-78, he was confirmed on the post of assistant Health Officer with effect from 18-3-1978.

( 3. ) THE petitioners case is that the respondent No. 2, Municipal Corporation, indore was established long back even before merger when Indore was a princely State. However, after the independence and merger of the States, when Madhya Bharat was formed as Class b State, the administration of Municipal Corporation, Indore was being governed under the Madhya Bharat Municipal Corporation Act and after the formation of the larger Madhya Pradesh, after Reorganisation, the Municipal corporation Act, 1956 was made applicable, according to which the petitioners services are governed.

( 4. ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the controversy, as has been raised in this petition, relates to the amendment to section 58 of the Act by M. P. Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1982, according to which sub-section

(5) and sub-section (6) have been added to section 58, which read thus :-"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 pay and 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. "

( 5. ) BY virtue of these sub-sections (5) and (6) of S. 58 of the Act, the State government has now been empowered to transfer the officers or servants






















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