WAMAN BALKRISHNA Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUBHEDAR , A.J.C. 1. The facts of the case out of which this application for revision arises are indisputably these: The defendant-applicant was originally employed by the plaintiff non-applicant (the Municipal Committee of Murtizapur) as a Sanitary Inspector on Rs. 60 plus Rs. 7-8-0 as cycle allowance per month. About three years later on 6th July 1924 the applicant was appointed the Secretary of the Committee in addition on a consolidated monthly pay of Rs. 75, but on 8th December 1924 the applicant submitted an application to the plaintiff Committee to give him some allowance for doing the work of supervision of sanitation. On the same day the Chairman Public Health Sub-Committee proposed that the Secretary should get an allowance of Rs. 12 per mensem with effect from 6th July 1924 for the additional work of supervision and sanitation, and on the next day the Public Health Sub-Committee confirmed the aforesaid proposal of its Chairman. At the ordinary general meeting of the plaintiff Committee held on 10th December 1924, the aforesaid resolution for the grant of the extra allowance was unanimously approved and confirmed, and accordingly the applicant was paid this allowance every month with effect from 6th July 1924 up to 28th February 1926 amounting in all to Rs. 238-1-0. The payment of this allowance having been objected to by the auditor, on the ground that the sanction of the Local Government was not obtained for it as required by the proviso to Section 25(1), Central Provinces Municipalities Act 1922,the Deputy Commissioner, Akola, asked the plaintiff Committee to apply for the necessary sanction. Accordingly the plaintiff Committee applied for sanction of the Local Government and forwarded the application as required by the rules through the Deputy Commissioner; who in his turn, after gathering some more information on the point, forwarded it to the Commissioner, Berar Division. The latter officer, however, refused to forward it to the Local Government and sent it back on 16th September 1926 to the plaintiff Committee through the Deputy Commissioner, Akola. The plaintiff Committee thereupon resolved to recover the amount of the allowance paid to the applicant and after serving a notice upon him to refund the amount filed the suit in the Small Cause Court, Akola, for recovery of the same.

(2.) THE applicant defendant admitted the receipt of the money but pleaded (1) that the grant of the allowance in question did not require the sanction of the Local Government; and (2) that even if the Sanction was required, the plaintiff Committee having failed to obtain the refusal of the Local Government for the same, their suit was premature.

(3.) THE lower Court held all the points in favour of the plaintiff Committee and decreed the claim with costs. The defendant has, therefore, come up to this Court in revision. Out of the five grounds the first three only were pressed in arguments. These are: