MANICKAM Vs. DISTRICT BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff for a declaration that the resolution of the Taluk Board of Musiri dated 15 February, 1933 by which the establishment charges fixed by the Budget for 1933-1934 in the sum of Rs. 5,130 were reduced to Rs. 3,270 and the resolution dated 11 May, 1933 reducing the plaintiff's salary from Rs. 70 to Rs. 47 a month are both illegal and that he is entitled to be reinstated in the office and for the recovery of the difference between Rs. 70 and Rs. 47 from 1 April, 1933 up to 6 th June, 1934. The basis of the claim of the plaintiff is that both the said resolutions were passed in contravention of Section 67 of the Local Boards Act.

(2.) Section 67 runs thus: (1) The sanction of the Local Board shall be obtained for all proposals for fixing or altering the number, designations and grades of its officers and servants and the salaries, fees and allowances payable to them. (2) Such proposals shall be taken into consideration by the Local Board only at the instance of its President and the Local Board may sanction them with or without modifications: Provided that no proposal adversely affecting any officer or servant of the Local Board who has been in the permanent service of the Local Board for more than five years and is drawing a salary of not less than fifty rupees per mensem shall be considered, except at a special meeting convened for the purpose and no such proposal shall be given effect to, unless assented to by at least one-half of the members then on the Board. It will be seen from the provisions of this section that before a reduction of the salary of an officer of the Board can be attempted, the proposal for such a reduction should be sanctioned by the Local Board and that such a proposal should have been initiated by the President of the Board, and if that officer has been in service for more than five years and is drawing a salary of not less than Rs. 50, such a reduction can only be passed at a special meeting convened for the purpose and has to be assented to by at least one-half of the members of the Board. The case for-the plaintiff is that the resolution dated 15 February, 1933 was sanctioned by the Board without the proposal having been initiated by the President. Both the lower Courts find this as a fact and it follows from this that the said resolution is illegal, being in contravention of Section 67 of the Act.

(3.) So far as the resolution of 11 May, 1933 is concerned, the case for the plaintiff is that it is illegal for more reasons than one. Firstly, the resolution was based on the resolution dated 15 February, 1933, and as this was an illegal resolution, that resolution also must be declared to be illegal. Further, the meeting at which that resolution was adopted was not convened for the special purpose of reducing the salary of the plaintiff and moreover the resolution was not adopted on a proposal made by the President as required by Clause (2) of Section 67. The learned District Munsif was of opinion that the said special meeting was not convened for the said purpose and also that the proposal for such a reduction was not initiated by the President. The learned Subordinate Judge has taken a different view and held that the resolution was a valid one and passed in compliance with the provisions of Section 67 of the Act. This finding is now canvassed by Mr. K. S. Sankara Aiyar, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff. He contends that the resolution dated 11 May, 1933 is illegal because it was dependent on the prior resolution dated 15 February, 1933. There can be no doubt that it was in consequence of the resolution dated 15 February, 1933 that a reduction of the salaries of various officers was made. But it does not follow from this that the resolution of 11 May, 1933 is illegal. On a fair interpretation of Section 67 of the Act it will be seen that the validity of a resolution passed under the proviso to the section is not dependent upon the validity or the invalidity of a resolution passed under Clause (1) of Section 67. Section 67 (1) is general. It may be that the Local Board may pass a resolution by which it may fix or alter the designation and grade of its officers and servants or the salaries payable to them, and what in fact was sought to be done by the resolution dated 15 February, 1933 Was a reduction in the establishment charges which would naturally result in a revision or alteration of the salaries of all or some of the officers concerned, but it does not follow that such a resolution necessarily involves the reduction of the salary of any particular officer. It may be open to the Board to say that only the salaries of particular officers should be reduced but not the salaries of the others. Therefore the question of the validity of a resolution by which the salary of an officer of five years standing and drawing not less than fifty rupees per mensem is reduced would not necessarily depend upon any general resolution passed by the Local Board by which it resolves to reduce the salaries of its officers in general. What happened in this case is this. A special meeting was summoned on the 11 May, 1933 and held at 3 p.m., in the office of the Taluk Board, at which 22 members of the Local Board were present, and a unanimous resolution was passed by which the salaries of several officers including that of the plaintiff were reduced. The question therefore for decision is, is this resolution illegal as being in contravention of Section 67 of the Act?