MAHARASHTRA RAJYA PADVIDHAR PRATHAMIK SHIKSHAK VA KENDRA PRAMUKH SABHA versus PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 981 MAHARASHTRA RAJYA PADVIDHAR PRATHAMIK SHIKSHAK VA KENDRA PRAMUKH SABHA v. PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1765 of 2023) MARCH 17, 2023 [SURYA KANT AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.] Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 – s.493 r/w Cl. 5 of Appendix (IV) – Services rendered by primary teachers (Respondent nos.5 to 79) while in the service of the Zilla Parishad (ZP), if to be counted towards their seniority after the transfer and merger of their services into the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) – On appeal by the primary teachers recruited directly by the PMC whose seniority is adversely affected, held: Service rendered by Respondent Nos. 5 to 79 in the ZP has to be treated as service rendered in the PMC and therefore has to be counted towards the determination of their seniority as well – No infirmity in the view taken by the High Court in this regard – Also, service rendered by Respondent Nos. 5 to 79 in the ZP is consistent and unbroken and it remains in existence even after their absorption into the PMC as a result of the statutory protection embodied under Clause (5) of Appendix (IV) r/w s.493 – No merit in appeal – Service Law – Constitution of India – Art. 243Q. Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 – s.3(3)(b) – Purpose and scope of – Discussed. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 On a cursory look of the legislative scheme behind the MMC Act, it is evident that Section 3 falls in Chapter 1, which is captioned as ‘PRIMARY’. Since, the MMC Act was enacted in 1949, it has been suitably amended from time to time, especially after the insertion of Part IX-A ‘Municipalities’ in our Constitution with effect from 01.06.1993. Article 243Q(1) mandates that, in every State, the following would be constituted: (a) A nagar panchayat, for a transitional area, namely, an area in transition from rural to urban area; (b) a municipal council for a [2023] 2 S.C.R. 981 981 A B C D E F G H 982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R. smaller urban area; and (c) a municipal corporation for a larger urban area. The obligation was placed on every State under sub- Article of Article 243Q to define ‘transitional area’, ‘a smaller urban area’ or ‘a larger urban area’. It is in discharge of this Constitutional obligation that the State of Maharashtra also amended the MMC Act thereby providing under Section 3(1) that a ‘larger urban area’ shall be specified by way of a Notification to be issued under Article 243Q(2) of the Constitution, and such an area shall be deemed to be a duly constituted Municipal Corporation. Sub-Section (3) further provides that the State Government, in consultation with the Corporation, may include or exclude an area from within the limits of the Municipal Corporation. It is in this context that Clause (b) of sub-section (3) provides that when an area is included within the limits of the ‘larger urban area’, any appointments, notifications, notices, taxes, orders, schemes, licenses, permissions, rules, by-laws issued, imposed or granted, under the MMC Act or any other law which is for the time being in force in the larger urban area shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, apply to and be in force in the additional area, from the date that area in question is included in the city. To simplify, Clause (b) merely states that whatever appointments, notifications, notices, rules or by-laws etc. are already in force in the existing ‘larger urban area’ will mutatis mutandis come into force in the “additional area” which is included by issuing a notification under Clause (a) of Section 3(3) of the MMC Act. The purpose of Clause (b) is to ensure that any statutory or administrative decision which has already been enforced by a Municipal Corporation in its existing larger urban area shall stay in force and will become applicable automatically in the newly added area also. The expression ‘appointments’ has to be understood in this context only. The scope of Clause (b) as a provision is meant to facilitate the inclusion of newly added additional areas and to ensure that such areas do not remain in a vacuum for want of statutory or administrative decisions following the cessation of its status as part of the ZP. Clause (b) of Section (3)(3) is not concerned with the protection of conditions of service of the employees of the ZP who are absorbed into a Municipal Corporation. When the A B C D E F G H 983 Legislature never intended to regulate terms and cond
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.
Lex