NAGAR PANCHAYAT Vs. ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NAGAR Panchayat, Jaura (District Morena) through its President and the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Jaura, have preferred this appeal against an order dated November 3, 1997 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W. P. No. 2009/1996.

(2.) THE respondents filed Writ Petition No. 2009 of 1996 alleging that they have been working for the last more than six years as daily wages employees on muster roll in Nagar Panchayat, Jaura, and they had continuously worked for more than 240 days in each year; yet by resolution dated September 30, 1996 (Annexure P/1) their services were terminated from October 1, 1996 and their names were struck off from muster roll from that date. Interim writ was prayed and by an interim order dated November 4, 1996 passed in the writ petition it was ordered that the petitioners' engagement on muster roll shall not be discontinued until further orders. The appellants opposed prayer and filed return inter alia contending that the writ petitioners were not appointed according to rules and regulations on any clear vacant posts. It was contended that no work was available for them from October 1, 1996. It was also contended that according to the policy decision/ instructions issued by the State Government, the Nagar Panchayat passed a resolution on September 30, 1996 that the services of those daily wages employees who were engaged on muster roll shall stand terminated from October 1, 1996 but pursuant to the writ Court's interim order dated November 4, 1996 the petitioners were allowed to continue. The writ Court allowed the writ petition and the petitioners were held entitled to reinstatement. As regards back wages, the writ Court observed that the question as to whether the petitioners were gainfully employed or not could not be gone into in writ proceedings and directed that the appellants shall decide at their own level as to whether the petitioners were entitled to any back wages or not. Against this the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) SHRI M. C. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the respondents were not appointed as per rules and regulations governing appointment to the Municipal Council, and they were also not appointed against any clear vacant posts. Jt is contended that the appointments of the respondents were not made under the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 where-under regularisation can be made when there is a clear vacancy, and as there were no clear vacancies the respondents could not have been regularised; yet the writ Court while considering similar cases relying on the earlier Division Bench decisions of this Court in Mukhtyar Singh v. Food Corporation of India and Ors. , 1994-II-LLJ-488 (MP-DB), Mahesh Bhargava v. State of M. P. and Ors. , 1994-I-LLJ-1113 (MP-DB) and Yogendra Kumar Parashar v. Municipal Council, Morena and Anr. , 1998-II-LLJ-103 (MP-DB) disposed them of, namely, W. P. No. 1358/1997, Ashok Kewat v. State of M. P. and Ors. , W. P. No. 1267/1997, Mukesh K. Gupta v. Shivpuri Development Authority and Ors. , W. P. No. 1269/1997, Hart Om Sharma v. State of M. P. and Ors. , W. P. No. 1270/1997, Jitendra Kumar Trivedi v. State of M. P. and Ors. , W. P. No. 1292/1997, Kailash Shivhare v. State of M. P, and Ors. , W. P. No. 1359/1997, Ramesh Kewat v. State of M. P. and Ors. , W. P. No. 1360/1997, Harisingh Dangi v. State of M. P. and Ors. , W. P. No. 1364/1997, Prakash Dravid v. State of M. P. and Ors. , and 1424/1997. Mewaram Karare v. State of M. P. and Ors. , decided on November 28, 1997 and W. P. No. 1476/1997 and W. P. No. 1620/1997, decided on November 10, 1997, with the following directions that: