SATISHKUMAR BABULAL SHAH Vs. SARFARAZKHAN G PATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 8th February, 1984, passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 1089 of 1980 and Special Civil Application No. 1965 of 1980 by which the petitions were allowed by declaring that the present respondents-original petitioners were senior to appellants in the cadre of Junior Clerk and their seniority was to be respected for the purpose of Regulation 17 of the Regulations framed under Sec. 465 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, prescribing the conditions of service of the Municipal officers and servants. It was directed that the Municipal Corporation shall examine the question of promotions of the original petitioners in light of such seniority and the provisions of Regulation 17 and if they were otherwise found entitled to promotion in terms of Regulation 17, their cases will be considered for actual salary from 1-1-1980, but all other benefits except the actual salary will be extended to them fully if they are entitled to be promoted at the time when the persons now held to be junior to them were promoted.

(2.) According to the appellants, the learned singe Judge committed an error in holding Regulation 17 of the Regulations applied to the facts of the case and that on a true interpretation of the provisions, it did not apply to the persons working in the Audit Department, and that the seniority of those working in the Audit Department was to be maintained with reference to the date of entry in the department, and not on the basis of the standards laid down by the Regulation 17.

(3.) The learned single Judge, while considering the above contention, referred to the provisions of Sec. 47 which specifically provided that the Municipal Chief Officer shall exercise supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of the servants under him subject to the rules and regulations (which would mean regulation framed by the Standing Committee) made under Sec. 465 of the Act. This interpretation was clearly warranted by provisions of Sec. 47(1) of the Act.