The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with statutory provisions and due consideration of the entire service record before ordering compulsory retirement.

Arun Mishra, J.

1. The moot question for consideration is whether the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner is legal and valid and could be passed without the matter being on agenda.

2. The petitioner was working as Sweeper/Scavenger. She was appointed on 13-12-1977. She had completed service of 23 years. Her date of birth was determined in the year 1993 to be 40 years. All of a sudden, the petitioner submits, that without the matter being on agenda, a resolution was passed by the Council on 2-11-2000 ordering the retirement of the petitioner on the allegations that petitioner did not render the services herself and was used to get the work done through other persons by making the payment. The Vice-President and the President of Health Committee have also filed certain complaints; hence it was decided to compulsory retire the petitioner from service. Petitioner submits that though President-in-Council did not pass any resolution on 30-8-2000 with respect to compulsory retirement of the petitioner, however, while confirming the minutes of President-in-Council, the General Council had passed additional resolution under the guise of confirmation of the minutes of the President-in- Council which is impermissible in view of Section 56 Sub-section (4) of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961').

3. Respondents have filed their return and in the return it is not disputed that the matter was not decided by the President-in-Council and while confirming the minutes, it was incorporated in the meeting of the General Body of Municipal Council, hence the compulsory retirement was ordered. In the return, it is urged that show cause notices were given several times, but there was no improvement in work and behaviour of the petitioner and she had mentioned the wrong date of birth while entering into the service.

4. Order Annexure P/2 is illegal for the singular reason that for passing a resolution, it is necessary that provision of sub-section (3) of the Section 56 of the Act of 1961 is complied with. It has not been complied with. Sub-section (3) of Section 56 provides that notice of every meeting specifying the time and place thereof and the business to be transacted thereat shall be despatched to every Councillors and exhibited at the Municipal Office seven clear days before an ordinary meeting and three clear days before a special meeting. No notice was given that the matter of compulsory retirement of the petitioner was to be considered in the meeting of the Council dated 2-11-2000. Sub-section (4) of Section 56 of the Act of 1961 creates a bar for consideration of any other subject, other than specified in notice relating thereto. Sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 56 of the Act of 1961 are quoted below:-

56(3) Notice of every meeting specifying the time and place thereof and the business to be transacted thereat shall be despatched to every Councillors and exhibited at the Municipal office seven clear days before an ordinary meeting and three clear days before a special meeting.

56(4) No business other than that specified in the notice relating thereto shall be transacted at a meeting.

5. In Rajbahadur Mishra vs. Municipal Council, Maharajpur and others 1969 JLJ 95, a Division Bench of this Court considered the impact of sub-section (4) of section 56 of the Act of 1961 and held that any resolution passed without the same being entered in the agenda of the meeting is per-se invalid contrary to express provision contained in sub-section (4) of section 56 of the Act of 1961. Provision of section 3 of section 56 has the purpose behind it. When matter is brought to the agenda, due consideration is warranted. Without the item being on agenda, due consideration cannot be said to have been made which itself manifests from resolution P/2. President-in-Council had not taken a decision in its meeting dated 30th August, 2000 to retire the petitioner from service. As a matter of fact, matter of the petitioner's service w