RAM SWAROOP Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AJMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ application by Ram Swaroop Sharma under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) IT is stated by him that he was appointed as an Accountant in the Municipal Committee on 3rd December, 1931. He discharged his duties efficiently and in appreciation thereof he was selected for the higher post of Octroi-Superintendent by the Municipal Committee, Ajmer, on 18th January, 1941. He took charge of that office from 1st April, 1941 and performed his duties creditably. On 2nd January, 1948, he was appointed temporarily as Deputy Rationing Officer, Ajmer, by the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer. He worked in that capacity for about 15 months. Thereafter his services were not spared by the Municipal Committee and, therefore, he had to resume his substantive post as a Tax Superintendent. The petitioner proceeds to say that he had a spotless career throughout his service, his work was very efficient and well-spoken by all the officers and yet the President, Municipal Council, Ajmer, respondent No. 2, informed him by his letter No. Acctt/336 dated 10th March, 59 that the petitioner would be attaining the age of 55 years on 15th October, 1960 and was, therefore, required to hand over the charge of his office on that date (15th October, 1960 ). IT is this order which is sought to be impugned by the petitioner by this writ application. His main contention is that he had a right to continue in service till the completion of the age of 60 years according to the municipal law and that the President had committed a breach of law in retiring him on attaining the age of 55 years.

(3.) HAVING gone through the statements and affidavits of both the petitioner and the non-petitioner, we are clearly of opinion that the petitioner does not come within the definition of ministerial servant and it is very unfortunate that simply in order to gain his point, he has tried to reduce the status of a Tax Superintendent to that of a ministerial servant. The very fact that he himself made a representation to the Municipal Council that he had to do even out-door work and that his allowance should be raised from Rs. 35/- per month and the further fact that his allowance was actually raised to Rs. 60/- per month, leave no room for any doubt that the petitioner had to do out-door duties besides office work. Even in the office, his duty was more to control and see that the taxes were properly collected. He was an officer of the superior class with a number of other employees under him and it is wrong on his part to aver that he was ministerial servant. The provisions of Fundamental Rule 56 (b) (1) are, therefore, not available to the petitioner.