Two employees of Municipal Council challenged sub-rule 1(i) of Rule 5 of a Government Resolution imposing a 50-year age limit for absorption into State Service, alleging violation of constitutional rights. The High Court dismissed the petition.
Petition dismissed; rule stands discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP No. 2470/2007
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2470 OF 2007
Versus
Mr. P.P. Deshmukh h/f. Mr. S.S. Nandewar, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. Y.G. Gujrathi, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ. DATED : APRIL 04, 2018.
JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
14 to 16 of the Constitution of India, challenging sub-rule 1 (i) of Rule 5 contained in Government Resolution (hereinafter referred to
WP No. 2470/2007
2
as 'GR' for short) No. MCO./1203/1246/CR-175/03/UD.14, dated
11th January 2007 issued by Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra. It is the contention of the petitioners that the said provision is ultra-virus in view of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Both the sides are heard.
(5) Absorption of Existing Employees in the State Service :
(1) Every Existing Employee in Municipal Council -
(i) who has not completed 50 years of age on the appointed day;
(ii) who fulfills the respective conditions and possesses the qualification and experience laid down in Appendix II as may be relevant for absorption in the applicable Grade of a service;
(iii) whose work and conduct on a post held in a Municipal Council, immediately before the appointed day, in the opinion of the Absorption Authority, was satisfactory;
(iv) Provided that, an existing employee who was appointed in accordance with the Rules framed under the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 75 as the case may be sub-section (3) of Section 76 of the Act.
(v) against whom no departmental enquiry is pending,
shall be entitled to be absorbed in a Grade of a Service
WP No. 2470/2007
3
having salary equal to the existing scale of pay in the Municipal Council; or the lower scale of pay on which the employee was appointed as per the provisions of the said sub-section (3) of section 76 of the Act.
2) Exercise of option :-
(a) Every eligible Existing Employee who immediately before the appointed day, was working in a Municipal Council shall have the option either -
(i) to be absorbed in the State Services, or
(ii) not to be absorbed in the State Services.
(b) The option under sub-rule (a) shall be exercised in writing and communicated to the respective Absorption Authority within three months from the date of publication of these rules along with a resolution of the concerned Municipal Council agreeing to relieve the Existing Employee, if he is found fit for absorption, and to pay the pension and leave salary contribution and to transfer the sums lying in the Relevant Provident Fund Account alongwith the suitable interest as may be determined by the appointing authority.
(c) If the employee fails to communicate his option to the Absorption Authority within the period specified in sub-rule (b), that employee shall deemed to have not been opted and shall be treated as unwilling for absorption.
(d) On receipt of the option, the Absorption Authority shall acknowledge the receipt thereof.
(e) The option once exercised by the Existing
WP No. 2470/2007
4
Employee shall be final.
WP No. 2470/2007
5
submissions made and the other record like the record of calling objections of the employees and also the reply of the respondents show that as the scheme was for the benefit of employees, no objection was taken. On the contrary, one objection was received which was to the effect that instead of making the age as 50 years, it should be 45 years. Thus, the scheme was for the benefit of employees of Local Body and it was rightly accepted by the employees.
6
WP No. 2470/2007
presumed that Government had considered the possibility of rendering unsuitable employees of particular class for such absorption after crossing a particular age. When one man goes from Local Body to the Government, he needs to have time to learn the things in new office. The experience of the man in Local Body may not be of use when he starts working in Government Department. All these factors must have been considered by the Government. Thus, it cannot be said that the aforesaid different approach of the Government for two different classes of employees is against the provisions of Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance on some observations made by the Apex Court in the case reported as AIR 1986 SC 1035 [Indravadan H. Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.] . In that case, in view of the facts of that case, the Apex Court held that the provisions of Rules under challenge were irrational, arbitrary and unreasonable. Those observations are of no help in the present matter as the petitioners belongs to different class and the facts of the present matter are different. In the result, the petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
[SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
ssc/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether sub-rule 1(i) of Rule 5 of the Government Resolution setting a 50-year age limit for absorption of Municipal Council employees into State Service violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitutio
Whether the age restriction applied equally to different classes of employees (Chief Officer vs. Class III/IV) violates the principle of equality before law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Indravadan H. Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.Distinguished¶53
AIR 1986 SC 1035 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Pandharinath s/o. Manoharrao Bandawar and Anr.
State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Urban Development Department
T.V. NALAWADE
SUNIL K. KOTWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
