RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Director, Local Government, Punjab (vide Annexure P6) wherein it was stated that the Authority appointed by the Government under sub-section 6 of Section 38 read with Rule 5 of the Punjab Municipal Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1975 has not found the petitioner fit for recommending as Member of the Municipal Service of Accountants vide its decision on 23.4.1996.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in February 1950 by Municipal Committee, Guniana, District Bathinda. Later on, the Committee appointed him as Accountant on 1.4.1954 and he was also confirmed as Accountant by the resolution passed by the Municipal Committee. Thereafter, the Government framed rules called ''The Appointment and Examination of Accountants of Municipal Committee Rules, 1958''. But, the said rules were not applicable to the Accountants who have already been regularised before the framing of the Rules. According to the petitioner, he also held the additional charge as Secretary of the Municipal Committee from September 1965 to February 1974. Thereafter, Section 38 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 was amended by Punjab Act No. 24 of 1973. The said amended Act came into force with effect from 1.12.1975. In pursuance of the said amended Section, the State Government regularised the services of the employees and constituted a Committee to absorb the Accountants working in various Municipal Committees into State cadre. The case of the petitioner was also referred by the Municipal Committee, Guniana to the Director Local Government vide its letter dated 3.3.1976. But, according to the petitioner, no action was taken and the case of the petitioner was not placed before the Screening Committee which is the Authority constituted by the Government. The petitioner also referred several correspondence between the Director, Local Government and the Municipal Committee in regard to the submission of the record of the petitioner for the consideration of the Committee. It was only on 2.7.1986, the Director, Local Government (Directorate of Local Government, Punjab) alongwith its Memo No. 3LLG(TSG)-86/5423 enclosed an order passed under Section 38(6A) of the Municipal Act 1911 for being served on the petitioner. Said letter was exhibited as P-25. The order which was sought to be served as per the letter did not contain any date, but in paragraph 4 of the order, it is stated that the Authority appointed by the Government under sub-section 6 of Section 38 of the Punjab Municipal Act 1911 has not found the petitioner fit for recommending for the Municipal corresponding service vide its decision taken on 23.4.1976 and that the post on which the petitioner was serving before the constitution of the aforesaid service shall be deemed to have been abolished on 14.10.1976. As already stated, the petitioner challenges this order which was served on him in the year 1986.

(3.) There is no dispute of the fact that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk in February 1950 in the Municipal Committee, Guniana and later on he was appointed as an Accountant on 1.4.1954 and the petitioner has been in service at the time when Section 38 of the Punjab Municipal Act was amended. Sub- section 6 of Section 38 as amended in 1975 reads as follows :-