RAJENDRASINH V CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged inter alia the order of District Development Officer passed on 20/9/1984 suspending Resolution No. 40 dated 17/7/1984 passed by the then Lunawada Nagar Panchayat (now Lunawada Borough) promoting and appointing the petitioner from the post of Accountant to the post of Secretary w. e. f. 17/7/1984 on retirement of the then Secretary on his attaining the age of superannuation; on the ground that the Resolution No. 40 passed by Lunawada Nagar Panchayat was not in consonance with the instructions of the State contained in communication dated 19/3/1983. The Resolution was suspended under Section 294 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1961.

(2.) THE facts in brief deserve to be set out as under:-The petitioner who was an employee of Lunawada Nagar Panchayat had originally been appointed as Naka Karkoon on 6/5/1957. Thereafter he was promoted as Accountant in 1972. Petitioner was given charge of the post of Secretary on 21/1/1984 as per the prevailing rules and regulations. The qualification for the post of Secretary was matriculation and passing of Local Self-Government Diploma and 2 years experience in Municipality. Petitioner took the examination of Local Self-Government Diploma in March 1984, petitioner was declared successful on 12/6/1984. Petitioner submitted application on 3/7/1984 to the Chairman, Lunawada Nagar Panchayat Committee stating that as he possessed qualification and he has passed the Local Self Government Diploma Examination he be considered and promoted to the post of Secretary. The Lunawada Nagar Panchayat considered the application positively and passed resolution dated 17/7/1984 in its general meeting being Resolution No. 40 and resolved that as the post of Secretary was vacant due to retirement of the then Secretary Shri. P. J. Dave, and as petitioner was possessing requisite qualification for the post of Secretary, and as he was also holding charge of the post of Secretary and had put in 27 years service in Panchayat he was promoted to the post of Secretary in the pay scale of Rs. 500-900. The respondents State issued necessary administrative instructions vide communication dated 19/3/1983 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER V. RAMAN LAL KESHAV LAL SONI AND OTHERS, reported in AIR 1984 SC 161, providing moratorium on filling the post by way of direct recruit or promotion. The instruction dated 19/3/1983 were taken into consideration by District Development Officer and he was of the view that the Resolution of Lunawada Nagar Panchayat no. 40 dated 17/7/1984 was not in conformity with the directions of the State Government and therefore in exercise of power under section 294 (4) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act 1961 he suspended the same. It appears from the record that the Panchayat challenged this order of District Development officer before the Development Commissioner and the Development Commissioner vide order dated 28/1/1985 confirmed the order of District Development Officer. Petitioner therefore was apprehending his reversion and as even thereafter he was permitted to continue as Secretary approached this Court by way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THIS Court on 13/8/1987 [coram: R. J. Shah, J (as he then was)] ordered maintaining status quo as on date and thereafter the interim relief has been continued. At one point of time on 30/12/1988 this Court [coram: M. B. Shah,j (as he then was)]subsequently made an order to District Development Officer to consider case of the petitioner and as no decision was taken this Court [coram: R. A. Mehta,j (as he then was)] had to make an order for District Development Officer's presence in the Court for explaining non compliance with order dated 30/12/1988. Petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation and it is a statement made at the Bar by Shri. Mehta learned counsel for the petitioner that till the age of superannuation petitioner discharged his duty as Secretary to the Panchayat. The petitioner, however is not receiving pensionary benefits / retiral benefits on the post of promotion to the post of Secretary.