SURESH CHANDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER or not a Chief Municipal Officer holds a Civil post and is an employee of the State Government is the short question referred to us in the above petitions in view of the apparent conflict between the two Division Bench decisions of this Court, viz. , Jagmohanlal Bajpai v. State of M. P. and Ors. [1977 (1) SLR 746] holding that the Chief Municipal Officer does not hold a Civil post and is not an employee of the State Government and C. P. Kulshrestra (Dr.) v. Government of M. P. (1991 JLJ 198), holding to the contrary.

(2.) WE need not deal in detail with the facts leading to reference of the case to the Full Bench for resolving the conflict between the two decisions. Suresh Chandra Sharma, the petitioner in W. P. No. 4829 of 1997 has challenged the order of the State Administrative Tribunal, Bench Gwalior, by which his application before the Tribunal was dismissed on the ground that although his services were under the control of the State Government, since he was not getting salary from the State Government but from the Municipal Fund, in view of the ratio of the case in Jagmohanlal Bajpai (supra), the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. In other cases also, on account of the very controversy, the matter has been placed before this Full Bench.

(3.) THE M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to Municipalities and to make better provision for the organisation and administration of Municipalities in Madhya Pradesh. The Act has been amended from time to time right from the year 1963 to the year 1997 including the amendments necessitated by Constitution 74th (Amendment) Act, 1992. The Act in Chapter IV captioned