SUBHAS CHANDRA AND OTHERS versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1965] 1 S.C.R. 350 · Decided: 25-09-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

JSO 
SUBHAS CHANDRA AND 01HERS 
v. 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELW AND ANOTHER 
&ptember 25, 1964 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCllOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, RAGllUBAR DAYAL AND 
J. R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.) 
Punjab Municipal A.ct (Pun;. Ill of 1911), ss. 232, 235 and 236--
Scopt of. 
The now defunct Municipal C<>mmitlee of Delhi resolved in Novem-
bor 1957 that a graduate allowance should be paid to its graduate rlerlt.s 
in the junior grade. The Municipal Committee was replaced by the Muni-
cipal Corporation of Delhi under Act 66 of 1957 and the Commissioner 
of the Corporation admitted the claim only of those graduate junior 
grade clerks who were granted permission to pursue higher studies 
before July 1954. The petitioners who were other clerical employees 
serving the C..orporation moved the Supreme Court by a petition under 
Art. 32 of the Constitution alleging that the order of the Commis.<iooer 
was discriminatory becau."IC there \vas no rational basis for excluding 
them from the benefits of the resolution. 
The respondents contended 
that the Chief Commissioner of Delhi by his order G<'ted October 30, 
1956, pused under s. 232 of the Punjab Municipal Act (3 of 1911 ), 
had prohibited the granting of such special pays or 
other pecuniary 
benefits and so, the impugned order being itself without jurisdiction the 
petitioners could not complain of. being discriminated against. 
HELD : The Order of the Chief Commissionor was 
pcrfect.ly 
legal and in view of that Order it w.s not open to the Committee to 
sanction the payment of any allowance to any of its employees in Novem-
ber 1957. The rcsolutjon being without jurisdiction, the Commissioner 
·Of the Corporation could not treat it as a basis for 
sanctioning 
the 
graduate allowance to a graduate employee. ·rhe order of the Com-
mis!ioncr being thus illegal, no question of discrimination arises and 
lhe petition should be dismissed. (359 B-D]. 
By virtuo of the provisions of the Delhi Laws Act 1912, Adaptation 
of Laws Order, 1950, and s. 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the 
Chief Commissioner could make the order under s. 
232 of the Punjab 
Municipal Act, 1911. 
He had two sources of power under s. 232 and 
s. 236 and was free to avail himself of either source. Section 
232 
certainly empowered him to 
prohibit the 
Committee from 
granting 
special pay or other pecuniary advantage to its employees when it was 
"about to" do so. 
Wben the doing of an act was so prohibited, the 
Committee ceased to have any power to do it and a resolution passed 
hy it that such act may be done can have no legal 
validity .. The 
precise meaning that should be given to the expression 
11about to" de-
~ 
upon the context io which it is used, but there is no diftlcuhy 
1n the instant case because, the order it.self mentions that it wu made 
to appear to the Chief Commissioner that the Municipal Committee waa 
"about to" grant special pay or other pecuniary benefits to some of its 
employees. Though no opportunity was given to the Committee u r&-
<iuired by s. 235 of the Punjab Municipal Act, the Committee can 
acquiesce and waive such oon-<:ompliance, and since the section does DOI 
-require that an opportunity should be pveo to the parties affected by 
~: 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUBHAS CHAND&>, v. MUNICIPAL CORPOKAr!O"<' ( Mudholkar /.) 351 
A 
the Order of the Chief Commissioner, they are not entitled to say the 
Order is bad. Further, the section would 
be inapplicable in a case 
where the Order was passed by the .Chief Commissioner himself. [3540-
G; 35SA-C. 0-F: 3570-G; 358F-Gt 
· 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 33 of 1964. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the 
B enforcement of Fundamental Rights. 
c 
K. Baldev Mehta, for the petitioners. 
S. G. Patwardhan and 0. C. Mathur for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court wiis delivered by 
Mudholkar J. Eleven clerical employees serving the 
Cor-
poration of Delhi have moved this Court under Art. 32 of the 
Constitution for quashing an order dated . November 5, 1958 
made by the Commissioner of the Corporation of Delhi 
and 
issuing a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or 
D direction requiring the respondents to give effect to a resolution 
dated November 1/8, 1957 passed by the Executive and Finance 
Sub-Committee of the now defunct Municipal Committee of 
Delhi. 
The main ground on 'which the reliefs 
are claimed is 
that the action of the Conuni!isioner in making the or
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.