LATHI NAGARPALIKA KARMACHARI MANDAL Vs. LATHI NAGAR PALIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is filed on behalf of the employees of the Lathi Municipality (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent Municipality"). It is the case of the petitioners that in 1998 the employees of the respondent Municipality were granted the benefit of the fifth Pay Commission pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and now the Chief Officer of the Municipality proposes to take away that benefit in view of the instructions issued by the Director of Municipalities, Gujarat State on 23-7-2002. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision dated 30-7-2002 of this Court in Special Civil Application No.3532 of 2002 in support of the contention that even if the staff expenditure is in excess of 45%, the permanent employees who are appointed on the sanctioned set-up of the Municipality need not be made to suffer if the excess takes place on account of recruitment of daily wagers or regularisation of daily wagers. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Chief Officer had no power to reduce the pay scales once the pay scales were given by the Municipality.

(2.) It is further submitted by Mr Mishra for the petitioners that the members of the petitioner-association are permanent employees of the Municipality for whose salary, the respondents cannot fix any upper limit by way of percentage of income of the Municipality. Mr Mishra has heavily relied on the report of the Fifth Pay Commission and submitted that the Commission had considered the question of paucity of finances and, therefore, that defence can not now be raised by the Municipality. It is also submitted that even State Government facing such financial difficulties has not reduced the pay scales of its employees.

(3.) Mr RV Desai, learned AGP for the Director of Municipalities points out that the Director has issued instructions that the fifth Pay Commission pay scales are not to be paid by a Municipality which is spending more than 45% of its income on the salaries and wages to its employees. Mr Desai has placed reliance on the decision in Meman Aslam vs. Director of Municipalities, 1994 (1) GLR 446 laying down that in taking any decision under Section 260 of the Act neither the Director nor the Municipality implementing such a decision is required to give hearing to any employee. Mr Desai learned AGP also points out that the unpaid dues of the GEB are more than Rs.26 lacs and outstanding loan amount due from the Municipality is more than Rs.28 lacs as on 1-10-2002.