KRISHNALAL KEHARI Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, BALAGHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is a teacher employed under the Municipal Committee, Balaghat, and was, on the date, of filing this application undergoing Teachers' Training Diploma Course at Khandwa. His present pay is Rs. 69 plus dearness Rs. 30 total Rs. 99 per menses. Applicant's claim for pay and allowances during the two years' training period was refused by the Municipal Committee by its resolution dated 10 -7 -55. His successive appeals before the Sub -Divisional Officer and the Deputy Commissioner, Balaghat, were rejected on the ground that no appeal could lie as the refusal by the Municipal Committee to pay the amount in question did not amount to a departmental punishment within the meaning of Section 25 (6) of the C.P. Municipalities Act. The applicant has now come up in revision and has challenged the legality of the orders passed by the Courts below.

(2.) A preliminary question arose whether the present revision petition before the Board was tenable. The Learned Counsel for the applicant referred to the provisions of Section 58, C.P. Municipalities Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the 'Act') and relied on a Division Bench case of this Board reported in Vithalrao v. Secretary, Municipal Committee, Nagpur 1952 N L J 570. In Vithalrao's case a revision had been filed against an appellate order passed under Section 83 of the Act and it was held that the word 'control' as used in the marginal heading of Section 58 ibid includes the power to revise and the finality of an appellate order, as laid down in Section 83 (3) ibid, is no bar to revision proceedings under the amended Section 58 of the Act. Relying on this decision, the Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the Board could, in the present case also, interfere in revision under Section 58 ibid.

(3.) THE case law cited above makes it clear that in considering the question of tenability of a revision application against a second appellate order of the Deputy Commissioner, the provisions of Section 58 ibid will have to be read as subject to the restrictions imposed under Rule 3 framed under Section 25 (6) ibid. If we do that, it is obvious that the present application, made at the instance of the applicant is not tenable before the Board as his pay is admittedly below Rs. 150 p. m.