TOWN AREA COMMITTEE Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner No. 1 is Town Area Committee, Rajapur, in the district of Banda and Petitioner No. 2 is the Chairman thereof. The material facts giving rise to this petition are that while discussing the budget proposals the Town Area Committee, having noticed that the income of the Town Area Committee, has gone down while the expenses had gone up, decided by means of a resolution dated 25 -5 -1974 to retrench some of the employees in the octroi Department. Consequently by means of a notice dated 11 -5 -1975 the Petitioner No. 2 informed Respondent No. 3 that in view of financial stringencies that the Town Area Committee had been facing, it has been decided to retrench him and his services shall stand terminated after the expiry of one month from the date of service of the notice on the Petitioner. Respondent No. 3 made a representation against the notice dated 11 -5 -1975 served on him under the signature of the Chairman and the District Magistrate passed an order staying the termination of the service of Respondent No. 3. It is alleged that the order of stay passed by the District Magistrate was not communicated to the Town Area Committee and consequently the service of Respondent No. 3 was terminated in further compliance of the notice dated 11 -5 -1975. When this fact was brought to the notice of the District Magistrate, he passed an order dated 1 -7 -1975 by means of which he quashed the notice dated 11 -5 -1975. Against the order of the District Magistrate dated 1 -7 -1975 the Town Area Committee filed an application for reviewing of the said order. On 14 -9 -1975 the District Magistrate passed another order upholding his earlier order dated 1 -7 -1975 further commenting that it was not open to the Town Area Committee to retrench a permanent employee on the ground of financial stringency. The allegations made in the writ petition have not been controverted by means of any counter affidavit.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that apart from Section 39 -A of the UP Town Areas Act, the District Magistrate has no power under the Act to interfere with the resolutions passed by the Town Area Committee. The Standing Counsel has not brought to our notice any provision in the Town Areas Act under which an appeal or revision lies against the order passed by the Town Area Committee terminating the services of its employees to the District Magistrate. It is thus obvious that the District Magistrate had no power to interfere either with the resolution of the Town Area Committee resolving to retrench the services of some of its employees including Respondent No. 3 or with notice terminating the service of Respondent No. 3.