Munc. Corporation, Sagar vs Board of Revenue

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates:
B. M. Lal for petitioner; M. V. Tamaskar for respondents 1 to 3; P. C. Naik for respondents.

Headnote:Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1968 (M.P) Rr. 55 and 56 - right of appeal under R. 56 - when available -- employee holding a temporary post on contractual basis - no right of appeal is available to such an employee being specifically barred under R.55.
Respondent No.4 was appointed Safai Daroga by the Municipal Corporation, Sagar, On 12th April 1974, respondent No. 5 was appointed Tax Collector on 16th March 1974, respondent No.6 was appointed Safai Daroga on 12th October 1974 and respondent No.7 was appointed Tax Collector on 28th November 1974. The appointment orders of these employees specifically mentioned that their services would be liable to termination after twenty four hours notice. By notice dated 25th January 1977 the services of these respondents were terminated by the Municipal Council with effect from 25th February 1977. All the four respondents filed appeals to the Collector under rule 56 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1968. The Collector by the four order paned on 19th July 1977 in the appeals of responding 4 and 5 and on 13th July 1977 in the appeal of respondents 6 and 7, allowed the appeals. An objection was taken before the Collector that the appeal were not maintainable as the respondents were temporary employees but this objection was overruled. There were further appeals to the Commissioner and revision to the Board of Revenue which were dismissed. were was also a review to the Board of Revenue, which too failed The corporation then filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Held: The argument of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the respondents were temporary employees and. they were terminated in accordance with the terms of their contract and therefore no appeal lay to the Collector under rule 55. In our opinion this contention must be accepted. Rule 55 (c) specifically says that no municipa1 employee shall have a right of appeal if he is holding a temporary appointment. Further, rule 55(a) (iv) provides that no municipal employee shall have a right (if appeal if the order passed against him is an order terminating the employment in accordance with the term of the contract. The right of appeal is conferred by rule 56 but the provisions of rule S6 are expressly subject to the provisions contained in rule 55. It is clear from the facts stated above that the respondents were holding temporary appointments. Apart from that, the termination of their employment was in accordance with the terms of their contract. In accordance with the terms of employment respondents services could be terminated by giving twenty-four hours notice. The Municipal Corporation, however, gave a months notice to all the respondents. Still it was a termination in accordance with terms of the contract. As the appeals filed by the respondents were not competent, the Collector exceeded his jurisdiction in allowing the appeal and in directing reinstatement. On this view of the matter, the petition 1 as to allowed. We, however, expect and it is also stated by the counsel for the Corporation that the Corporation will consider to give employment to the respondents if and when vacancies arise petition allowed.