LAJPAT RAI Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide resolution No. 463 dated January 14, 1975, the petitioner was promoted by respondent No. 3 Municipal Committee, Batala from the post of House Tax Sub-Inspector to that of a Tax Inspector in the scale of Rs. 160-400. As House Tax Sub Inspector the petitioner was getting this pay in the scale of Rs. 140-350. By virtue of the above-noted promotion the petitioner has a financial gain of Rs. 2/- per month only. This resolution of the Municipal Committee was annulled by Deputy Director Local Bodies in purported exercise of his powers under section 42 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short the Act) vide his impugned order dated April 4, 1975 (Annexure P.3). This order reads as follows :-

(2.) The petitioner now impugns this order primarily on the ground that the considerations which have prevailed with the Deputy Director for annulling the resolution are wholly alien or extraneous or section 42 of the Act does not authorise the Deputy Director to set aside the resolution of a Municipal Committee on these considerations. It deserves to be noticed here that the Municipal Committee in its return by way of an affidavit of Shri Khullar has conceded that the petitioner was the senior-most Sub Inspector in the Tax department of the Municipal Committee and he had a financial gain of Rs. 2/- per month on account of the above-noted promotion. As the whole controversy relates to the interpretation of section 42 of the Act the same is reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, I find that the impugned order annexure P.3 is factually and legally unsustainable, and is thus quashed. The petitioner is also held entitled to the costs of this litigation which I determine at Rs. 250/-. He would recover this amount from respondent Nos. 1 and 2.