KALABHAI KHODABHAI MAKWANA Vs. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the respective petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and/or order quashing and setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.2 Collector, Banaskantha dated 12th September, 1994 (Annexure B) and the order dated 14th July, 1997 (Annexure D).

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioners that all the petitioners were initially appointed as Daily Wagers in the Water Works Department of Radhanpur Municipal Borough and at the relevant time, the respondent No.3 was a Nagar Panchayat. That vide General Board Resolution No. 81 dated 30th March, 1994 it was resolved that all the petitioners, who were working in the Water Works Department as Daily Wagers, were required to be made permanent and that they were required to be taken on the pay scale. That the Collector, Banaskantha took the said resolution under review in exercise of powers under Section 258 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act and by order dated 12th September, 1994 stayed the resolution No. 81 dated 30th March, 1994 permanently and directed the Nagar Panchayat to restore the position prevailing prior to the resolution dated 30th March, 1994. That the said order was passed in respect of all such resolutions including the resolution No.81. That as the said order was passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioners and other affected employees, the petitioners preferred Special Civil Application No. 11023 of 1994. The other employees also preferred other Special Civil Applications and all these aforesaid Special Civil Applications came to be allowed / disposed of vide judgment and order dated 17th June, 1995 as the order passed by the Collector, Banaskantha dated 12th September, 1994 in breach of principle of natural justice and remanded the matters to the Collector, Banaskantha and the Collector, Banaskantha was directed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the petitioners. That thereafter, after giving an opportunity to the petitioners, the Collector, Banaskantha has passed the impugned order dated 14th July, 1997 by which the resolution No. 81 dated 30th March, 1994 came to be permanently stayed by the Collector, Banaskantha in exercise of powers under Section 258 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act and further passed an order to restore the position prevailing prior to the resolution dated 30th March, 1994. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Collector, Banaskantha dated 14th July, 1997, the petitioners have preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE main contention on behalf of the petitioners was that once the resolution is implemented, the Collector has no jurisdiction to take the resolution under suo -motu review / revision under Section 258 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act. It was submitted that identical petition raising the similar controversy was referred to the Larger Bench being Special Civil Application No. 9520 of 1995 and therefore, this Court while admitting the present Special Civil Application, passed an order directing the Registry to place this petition for final hearing after the Larger Bench finally disposes of the Special Civil Application No. 9520 of 1995 which is referred to the Larger Bench.