C. P. PANDEY Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the resolution of the respondent Municipal Corporation, Singrouli dated 27.8.2011 whereby it has been resolved that the petitioner, who was working on the post of Dy. Commissioner, shall not continue to do so on account of the fact that the post of Dy. Commissioner does not exist.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Director (Planning) in the Special Area Development Authority, Singrouli (hereinafter referred to as 'SADA') in the year 1981. It is stated that SADA was abolished in the year 1995 and all the assets and liabilities of the SADA were taken over by the Municipal Corporation, Singrouli which was subsequently constituted and, accordingly, the petitioner was absorbed in the services of the Municipal Corporation, Singrouli. It is stated that as there is no post of Assistant Director (Planning) in the setup of the Municipal Corporation, Singrouli and as the only equivalent post available in the Municipal Corporation, Singrouli is that of Dy. Commissioner, therefore, the petitioner was permitted to work on the post of Dy. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Singrouli and was continuing to do so but the respondent Mayor-in-Council has, on account of political pressure and reasons, passed the impugned resolution dated 27.8.2011, contrary to the resolution of the Corporation which is the highest body, to remove the petitioner from the post of Dy. Commissioner by coming up with an excuse that there is no post of Dy. Commissioner available in the set up of the Corporation and also on the ground that the petitioner is holding the charge of several posts as a result of which he as not able to discharge his duties.

(3.) THE learned counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5, per contra, submits that the post of Dy. Commissioner is not available in the establishment of the respondent Corporation. He further states that the petitioner is holding the charge of several posts as a result of which the functioning of the Corporation is effected. It is stated that under these circumstances, the impugned resolution has been passed by the Mayor-in-Council with a view to ensure proper functioning of the Corporation. The learned counsel further submits that in view of the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporations (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Servants) Rules, 2000, the post of Dy. Commissioner has to be filled up 50% by promotion and 50% by deputation and in such circumstances the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue as Dy. Commissioner and, accordingly, the impugned resolution has been passed by the authorities which cannot be found fault with.