Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradeep Kumar Solanki vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 May, 2019
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.9979/2019
(Pradeep Kumar Solanki & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)
Gwalior, Dated : 15.05.2019
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, Counsel for the petitioners.
Shri S.N. Seth, Government Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) That, the impugned resolution dated 16.05.2018 is set aside.
(ii) That, the respondents be directed to henceforth make absorption of the petitioners on the basis of their service records, qualification held by them, of their reasonable post and to pay arrears of salary from the date, the area of Gram Panchayat have been included in the Municipal Corporation.
(iii) That, other relief which is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted."
According to the petitioners, necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that they were appointed on the post of Rojgar Sahayak on contractual basis. The petitioner No.1 was appointed on the post of Rojgar Sahayak on contractual basis in Gram Panchayat, Purani Chhavni, District Gwalior, the petitioner No.2 was appointed as Rojgar Sahayak on contractual basis in Gram Panchayat Malanpur, Janpad Panchyat Ghatigaon, District Gwalior and petitioner No.3 was appointed as Rojgar Sahayak on contractual 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.9979/2019 basis in Gram Panchayat Veerpur, Janpad Panchayat Barai, District Gwalior. In the year 2015-16, the State Government took a decision to merge the area of aforesaid Gram Panchayats in the limits of Municipal Corporation and it was decided to absorb the employees working in the erstwhile Gram Panchayats. Accordingly, the petitioners were relieved by their Gram Panchayats for submitting their joining in Corporation. However, the respondents did not allow the petitioners to join but they sought guidance from the Government. Ultimately, the petitioners were permitted to join vide order dated 17.8.2016. Thereafter, the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 433 read with Section 58 (1) of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act amended the M.P. Municipal Corporation (Appointment and Service Conditions for Officers and Servants) Rules, 2000. Accordingly, the Committee was constituted and the petitioners were recommended for their absorption. The matter was placed before the Corporation through its MIC. However, by resolution dated 16.5.2018, it was directed that they shall be paid a fix salary of Rs.5000/-. However, no decision was taken in respect of their absorption as directed by the State Government by notifications dated 25.3.2015 and 23.6.2016.
Thus, according to the petitioners, the resolution dated 16.5.2018 is nothing but arbitrary in nature. The petitioners have 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.9979/2019 challenged the resolution dated 16.5.2018, however, the same has not been placed on record. Thus in absence of resolution dated 16.5.2018, this Court is not in a position to consider the correctness of the said resolution. However, as per Rule 8(D) of M.P. Municipal Corporation (Appointment and Service Conditions for Officers and Servants) Rules, 2000, it is clear that only those employees who are the substantive employees of merged Gram Panchayats shall be merged.
Rule 8 (D) of M.P. Municipal Corporation (Appointment and Service Conditions for Officers and Servants) Rules, 2000 reads as under:-
"8-D. Employees of such Gram Panchayats and Urban Local Bodies, whose merger has been made in Municipal Corporation, can be merged in Municipal Corporation as follows:-
(1) Commissioner, Municipal Corporation shall collect the information of employees working in the merged Gram Panchayats from Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat and of employees working in the merged Urban Local Bodies from Chief Municipal Officer of the concerned body.
(2) Only those officers/employees of merged Gram Panchayats/Urban Local Bodies shall be merged in Municipal Corporation, who are the substantive employee of merged Gram Panchayat/Urban Local Bodies. The officer/employee of State cadre cannot be merged in Municipal Corporation.
(3) The following committee shall be constituted for the merger of the officer/employee of Gram Panchayats/Urban Local Bodies merged 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.9979/2019 in Municipal Corporations:-
(i) Commissioner, Municipal Chairperson/ Corporation or an officer President nominated by him who shall not be below the rank of Additional Commissioner
(ii) Additional Member Commissioner/Deputy-
Deputy Commissioner or Senior Officer of Finance section of Corporation
(iii) Divisional Joint Director, Member Urban Administration and Development
(iv) Additional Commissioner/ Member Deputy Commissioner/ Secretary Assistant Commissioner, who is in-charge officer of establishment section of corporation (4) Such employees of Gram Panchayats/Urban Local Bodies merged in Municipal Corporation, who are working at the present post for minimum 5 year, shall be merged on those posts, which are equivalent to the post mentioned for direct recruitment in Schedule-I even if such employees have or does not have prescribed minimum qualification as mentioned in Schedule-I. (5) Such employees of Gram Panchayats/Urban Local Bodies merged in Municipal Corporation, who are working at the present post for less than 5 year, shall be merged on those posts, which are equivalent to the post mentioned for direct recruitment in Schedule-I and such employee shall have prescribed minimum qualification as mentioned in Schedule-I. In case of the employees other than employees mentioned in sub-rule (4) above, the committee shall make suitable enquiry. (6) If committee considers that such employees 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.9979/2019 are suitable for such posts of direct recruitment which are equivalent of their present posts then they shall be merged on such direct recruitment posts. If such employees are not considered suitable by the committee for equivalent post then they shall be merged in such other posts of direct recruitment for which they are considered suitable by the committee, however the pay and current pay scale shall be remain protected. (7) After examining the cases of employees on above stated norms, the Committee shall present its recommendations before the Mayor-in-Council.
The order of merger of merged employee shall be issued after the approval of Mayor-in-Council. (8) The Committee, so far as possible, shall make merger only on the posts of Direct Recruitment under these rules. In exceptional cases, if in the opinion of the committee, merger on the post of promotion or deputation is necessary, then such cases shall be forwarded to the State Government with the recommendation of Mayor-in-council. The merger shall be made as per the order of the State Government.
(9) The Seniority of merged employee shall be below the seniority of substantive original employees of Municipal Corporation in the cadre of post merged and shall be valid from the date of merger. In case of merger of more than one merged employees of Gram Panchayats/Urban Local Bodies, the determination of their seniority shall be made below the seniority of substantive employees of the Municipal Corporation from the date of their joining in the concerned Gram Panchayats/Urban Local Bodies."
Now the next question for consideration is that whether a person who has been appointed on contractual basis can be said to be a substantive employee of merged Gram Panchayat.
Being an employee employed by the Gram Panchayat on 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.9979/2019 contractual basis, it is clear that the petitioners were not the substantive employees of the Gram Panchayats. Their services were liable to be terminated at any time and in the appointment order itself it has been mentioned that the employees appointed on contractual basis shall not be entitled for regularization nor they shall make any claim for the regularization or permanent status. In view of clause 3 of the appointment order of the petitioners, it is clear that the petitioners were not the substantive employees of the erstwhile Gram Panchayats. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference in the petition.
The petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
(alok) Judge
ALOK KUMAR
2019.05.17
11:14:08
+05'30'