JUDGMENT :

Wanlura Diengdoh, J.

1. The petitioner is the registered association of the employees of the Shillong Municipality and affiliated to the Indian National Trade Union Congress, New Delhi.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that for each municipality, a body of Commissioners designated as the Municipal Board having authority over the municipality has to be established under Section 10 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956.

3. However, in Meghalaya no Municipal Board was constituted as provided under Section 10 of the said Assam Municipal Act since the State of Meghalaya was carved out of the State of Assam.

4. The petitioner has also averred that Article 243-R of the Constitution of India provides that all seats in the Municipality shall be filled by persons chosen by direct election from the territorial constituencies in the Municipal area; such constituencies are to be known as Wards.

5. In this regard, a writ petition being Civil Rule No. 66(SH) 1998 praying for a direction to the State Government to hold Municipal election was preferred before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court and vide judgment and order dated 15.09.1998, the High Court has directed for holding the election to the Shillong Municipality.

6. The said judgment and order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.12.1999 passed in Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1999 has upheld the judgment of the Gauhati High Court and directed that Municipal elections should be held within six months.

7. However, the said Municipal election was not held and PIL No. 2 of 2016 was filed before this High Court which was disposed of vide order dated 11.04.2017 with an observation that efforts must be made to carry out all necessary process of holding Municipal election.

8. Despite the order of this High Court, the Municipal election was not held which led to the filing of another PIL No. 2 of 2018 with the same prayer i.e., for direction to conduct Municipal election. This PIL was dismissed and till date no Municipal election was held resulting in the State Government remaining at the helm of affairs of the Shillong Municipality.

9. It is also the case of the petitioner that in the absence of an elected Board, all the powers and functions of the Shillong Municipality are being exercised under section 299 of the Municipal Act by the State Government, and all its properties, i.e., its assets and liabilities as well as its employees are, during the supersession of the Board, the liability of the State Government.

10. That since the advent of the State of Meghalaya, the Shillong Municipality has been facing immense problems affecting the interest of the employees of the Municipality who were, at times, deprived of their regular salary and other benefits which they were entitled to in accordance with law.

11. Being victims of discrimination, the employees filed representation through their predecessor-in-interest, i.e., the All Assam Civic Bodies Workers Federation before the Government of Assam and the Government referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal Guwahati for adjudication.

12. However, during the pendency of the dispute, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement for which the Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 21.07.1971 recorded its finding making the Award in terms of the settlement and has annexed the Memorandum of Settlement marked 'X' in the body of the said Award.

13. In view of the Award mentioned above, the pay scale of the Municipal employees has been brought at par with the Government employees and accordingly, the employees of the Shillong Municipality were brought within the purview of the recommendation of the Meghalaya Pay Commissions constituted in the year 1977, 1987, 1997 and 2007.

14. The petitioner has also stated that the State Government was hesitant to implement the recommendation of the 4th Pay Commission to the Municipal employees which compelled them to approach this Court by filing a writ petition bein