LexMUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BHOPAL, M.P. versus MISBAHUL HASAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
353
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BHOPAL, M.P.
v.
MISBABUL HASAN & ORS.
February 12, 1972
[S. M. Sum, C.J., A. N. RAY AND M. H. BEG, JJ.]
Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956C-Ss. 432 and 433-
Whether the Sti;.te Government can change the service conditions of the
Corporation emp/uyees by framing rules without following the procedure
laid down under the Act.
The respondent employee was appointed a Lower Division Clerk and
after 5 years of service, the Administrator of the Municipal Corporation,
purporting to carry out the orders of tht State Government, passed
a
general .order dated 21st December 1967, statin~ that the age of com-
pulsory retirement of all servants Of the Corporation (other than Class IV
servants) should be 55 years.
The respondent bad entered into service of the Municipal Board of
Bhopal long ago.
In 1967, the Board became a Corporation under the
Madhya Pradesh Municipal Coryoration Act, 1956. As a result of the
continuance of the service conditions ·of the employees of the former
Municipal Board; the petitioner wss to retire ~t the age of 60 (by notifica·
tion dated 11th November, 1947), but in 1955, the Government of Bhopal
by a Notification, applying the service regulations of Central Government
employees, reduced the retiring age of the respondent to 58.
Under the
Corporation Act of 1956, question relating to service conditions of the
employees of the Corporation were to be regulated by bye-laws unde'
S. 427 (1-C){b) of the Act and not by rules to be made by Govern-
ment. The State Government by a Notification· in 1967 further reduced
the retirement age of all employees (except IV Grade employees) to 55
years.
The validity of the Order dated 21st December 1967 of .the
Administrator was challenged by the respondent on the ground that the
procedure laid down by the Act for amending a bye-hw was not followed,
1
and the High Court accepting this contention quashed the Government
Notification dated 22nd December 1967 as well as the general
order
reducing the age of retirement. On appeal, it was contended that the pro-
cedure laid down in S. 432 of the Corporation Act was not mandatory but
was merely meant to give the Corporation concerned an opportunity of
putting forward it• views by means of a' representation it may like to make
with regard to any proposal to the Government to modify or repeal
any bye-law so that the administrator, acting on behalf of the Corporation,
could forego the right of, the Corporation to make any representation. The
State, in its appeal contended that the rule making powers of the Govern-
ment under S. 433 are very wide and the Government can make a rule
if the Corporation foiled to make a bye-law. The view of the High Court
that the matter did not fall under S. 433 of the Act waJ assailed. Dismiss·
ing the . appeals,
, HELD : (I) The
procedure laid down in S.
432 of the Act ls ·
only applicable where there is an existing bye-law which appears to the
Government to stand in need of modification or repeal wholly or in part.
Therefore, the impugned notification does not fall under S. 432 of the Act.
!358 GJ
354
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 3 S.C.R.
(2) Assuming that the impugned notification purported to publish a
rule made under S. 433 of the Act, the condition precedent of previous
publication in the Gazette for an amendment of a rule, laid down by
S .. 24 of the Madhya Pradesh General Clauses Act 1957 had not been
followed in the present case. Therefore no valid alteration in the ege
of retirement of the employee-respondent was made in accordance with
law. The impugned notification is bad and quashed. (359 C, 360 DJ
..
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: C.A. Nos. 2004 of 1970 and
319 of 1971.
Appeals by Special Leave from the judgment and order dated
the August 26, 1970 of the Madhya Ptadesh High Court in Mis-
cellaneous Petition No. 302 of 1968.
C. K. Daphtary and Rameshwar Nath, for the Appellant (in
C.A. No. 2004 of 1970).
1. N. Shroff, for the Appeliant (in C.A. No. 319 of 1971).
S. K. Gambhir, for Respondent No. 1 (in both the Appeals).
Rameshwar Nath, for Respondent No. 2 (in C.A. No. 319
of 1971).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
c
D
Be&, J,
The.r~ ar!' two appeal.s by gpecial Leave before us,
one by the Mumc1pal Corporation, Bhopal, and another by the
E
State of Madhya Pradesh, against the Judgment and order of a
Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh HighExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.