MAKHANLAL SAHU Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners (appellants herein) filed writ petition before this Court challenging the notices Annexures P-2, P-3, P-4 and P-5 by which it was proposed to retire them from service on attaining the age of 60 years. The petitioners are Class IV servants in the Municipal Corporation, Durg. They alleged that on 24th of March, 1999, the Government has taken a decision to enhance the age of retirement of Class IV Government Employees from 60 years to 62 years. It was contended by the petitioners that when earlier retirement age was enhanced from 58 to 60 years by the Government, the Corporation has also adopted the same and enhanced the age of retirement of such employees to 60 years.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that age enhanced by the Government for retirement of Government servants does not become automatically applicable in the case of local authorities like Municipal Corporation. The learned counsel for the appellants has frankly stated that the Corporation has accepted the age of retirement to be 62 years and has also made it applicable w. e. f. the date Government had enhanced the age of retirement for its employees. Annexure L-1 has been placed on record which indicates that the orders of retirement passed have been cancelled with respect to the employees retired on or after 30th September, 1998. The grievance of the petitioners stands satisfied with the passing of the resolution by the Corporation. A modified prayer has been made in the present appeal that though the petitioners have been reinstated, they have not been paid the salary of the intervening period till reinstatement on the basis of 'no work no pay'.

(3.) THE Municipal Corporations are corporate bodies incorporated under M. P. Municipal Corporations Act, 1956. They have their own conditions of service and it is open for them to prescribe conditions of service independently. Thus, conditions of service fixed by the Government for its employees do not become applicable ipso facto to the employees of the Municipal Corporation. They are free to take their own decision in the matter. It appears that subsequently the Corporation has adopted the circular and benevolently extended it to its employees with effect from the date on which the age was enhanced for Government Employees, though it was not obliged to do so, and it has already taken back the appellants in service. Since the appellants have failed to show that age enhanced by the Government became applicable automatically to Municipal Corporation employees, they have no legally sustainable right to claim the similar treatment at par with Government employees. In the circumstances, on the basis of 'no work no pay', though the decision has been applied retrospectively, non-payment of salary for the period, service has not been rendered cannot be said to be an arbitrary action on the part of the Municipal Corporation.