ALOK AWASTHI Vs. RAM SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fact which is not disputed is that the non-petitioner retired as a Chief Municipal Officer of Shajapur Municipality. The only point in dispute is the point of law which, according to me a plain reading of the provision of S.87(2) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, for short, 1961 Act, should prove decisive of the controversy. If anything more has to be said a reference may be made to the provisions of S.16 of the M.P. General Clauses Act, 1957, for short, 1957 Act, as also to the Rules framed under the Act, namely, the M.P. State Municipal Service (Executive) Rules, 1973, for short, the Rules.

(2.) The Rent Controlling Authority, for short the authority, has decided as a primary issue. the question as to whether non-petitioner was a "retired servant of any Government" within the meaning of S.23-J(i) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (as amended in 1985) for short, Accommodation Act. The authority took the view that the non-petitioner having retired as a Chief Municipal Officer of Shajapur Municipality, he was entitled to invoke the provisions of S.23-J(i) of the Accommodation Act. I propose to extract S.87 of 1961 Act in extenso because the ambiguity which could be introduced by Sub-Sec. (1) on which the petitioner could bank, has to be defused and denuded.

(3.) True it is that in Sub-S.(1) it is stated that the Chief Municipal Officer shall be the principal executive officer of the Council but it is further stated that "and all other officers and servants of the council shall be subordinate to him." It is to be made clear that the words "all other" do not in a any manner impinge on the status of the Chief Municipal Officer of which position care is explicitly taken by Sub-S.(2). Indeed, law is well settled that no provision of any enactment or any expression used in any particular provision of any enactment has not to be read in isolation but in the entirety of the context to give full effect to the accepted canons of statutory interpretation. Sub-Sec. (2) makes it very clear that the Chief Municipal Officer is not to be considered an officer and servant of any Municipal Council because it is explicitly contemplated thereunder that he shall be appointed by the State Government. Section 16 of the M.P. General Clauses Act clearly envisages that power to appoint includes the power to suspend and dismiss an employee. As such, the State Government which has power to appoint the Chief Municipal Officer has the power to dismiss also the officer. Thus, a Chief Municipal Officer can be a "servant" only of the State Government.