JALINDAR BABURAO MUNJAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common issue involved in the present petitions is about the retirement age of Leading Fireman/Tandel working in Pune Municipal Corporation. The grouse of Petitioners is that the post of Leading Fireman/Tandel was earlier a Class-IV post and therefore age of 60 years was fixed for retirement. They are aggrieved by action of the Municipal Corporation in curtailing the age of retirement to 58 years on account of subsequent reclassification of the post as Class-III. The issue that we have been called upon to decide in the present petitions is about the exact age at which Leading Firemen/Tandel would retire from services of Pune Municipal Corporation.

(2.) Appearing for petitioners, Mr. Mahadeshwar the learned Counsel would submit that notification of Pune Municipal Corporation Services (Recruitment and Classification of Services) Rules, 2014 (Recruitment Rules, 2014) cannot have any impact the age of superannuation of Leading Fireman/Tandel. That the age of retirement of various municipal servants has been provided for in the Municipal Service Regulations, 1954 (Service Regulations, 1954) formulated under the provisions of Sec. 465 of the MMC Act. That the Recruitment Rules, 2014 do not have the effect of superseding the provisions of the Service Regulations 1954. Therefore the Service Regulations, 1954 still continue to subsist and operate, under which the post of Tandel is included in inferior service in Class-IV category. That therefore Leading Fireman/Tandel are entitled to serve upto the age of 60 years.

(3.) Mr. Mahadeshwar would further contend that Sec. 465(1)(g) of the MMC Act confers powers on the Standing Committee to frame Regulations laying down the age of retirement of the municipal servants. Confirmation of the Municipal Corporation is required in respect of those Regulations and not of the State Government. That the Service Regulations 1954 have been framed by the Standing Committee vide Resolution dtd. 27/2/1954, which came to be confirmed by the Municipal Corporation vide Resolution dtd. 26/3/1954. That the Municipal Corporation could formulate Recruitment Rules, 2014 only in respect of those posts where appointments can be made by the Municipal Corporation, whereas the Corporation formulated Recruitment Rules in respect of all the posts in the Corporation. That the Regulations prescribing qualifications required for appointment to posts other than the posts specified in Sec. 457(3) of the Act can be framed only by the Standing Committee and that therefore the Recruitment Rules, 2014 (which are not framed by the Standing Committee) are in violation of Sec. 465(1)(a). That therefore the Recruitment Rules, 2014 cannot have the effect of altering the age of retirement of Leading Fireman/Tandel.