THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. versus PIJUSH KANT! DAS AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 831 · Decided: 22-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
) 
I 
. , THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL 
A 
CORPORATION AND ORS. 
v. 
~' " 
,, ',. 
-, i 
PIJUSH KANT! DAS AND ANR. 
JANUARY 22, 1996 .,,. 
. , 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
... 
'' 
Service Law : 
Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 : 
Ss. 120(2) and (2A):-Notification dated 21.12.1983, Circular No .. ~I 
dafed 29.6.1985 :. Merger of Jadhavpur, South Suburban and Garde~1 R,~ach 
Municipalities in Calcutta Municipal Corporation-Placement of employees 
. . ' 
,, 
of erstwhile municipal units in comparable posts and pay scales under the 
B 
c 
Corporation on the basis of their pay and nature of duties in er.itwhile D 
municipal units-Held to be wholly justified. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Articies 14, Jfi"Merger of Jadhavpur, South Suburban and· Garden 
Reach municipalities in Calcutta Municipal Corporation-Placement of E 
employees of erstwhile municipalities in comparable posts and pay scales 
under the C01poratio11 keeping in view their pay and nature of duties in the 
erstwhile municipalities-Held, neither arbitrary nor irrational. 
With the constitution of Calcutta Municipal Corporation under the 
provisions of Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, with effect from 
4.1.1984, comprising erstwhile Calcutta Corporation and t.hree other 
mu,nicipalities, namely Jadhavpur Municipality, So.nth Suburban 
• 
Municipality and Garden Reach Municipality, employees of all the four 
F 
municipalities were taken over by the Corporation on the same ter'!'s .and 
.conditions of service as in. force in municipality concerned immediately G 
before the date of merger. Jn view of the disparity in the. stalling pattern 
and the distinction in the functioning of the erstwhile municipalities the 
merged municipalities were identified as 'Units' under the Corpor~tion 
nntil framing of appropriate rules and regulations. The Governor of West 
Bengal, in exercise of powers under Ss. 120(2) and (2A), issued Notification H 
. 
I 
831 
832 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 
A dated 21.12.1983 making arrangement for the employees of erstwhile Gar· 
den Reach Municipality, Circular No. 31 dated 29.6.1985 issued in this 
regard stated that the officers and the employees of the three units, i.e., 
erstwhile municipalities of Jadhavpur, South Suburban and Garden 
Reach, who were in service on 3.1.1984 and continued till date would be 
B placed in the comparable posts and pay scales under the Corporation. 
Under the Corporation there were 4 categories of Education Officers, 
namely, Assistant Education Officer in the pay-scale of Rs. 610-1270, 
Deputy Education Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 540-1470, Education 
Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 660-1600 and Senior Education Officer in 
C the pay scale of Rs. 1100-1900. Respondent no. 1, who was working as 
'Education Incharge' in a much "lower pay scale of Rs. 380-910, in the 
erstwhile Garden Reach Municipality was, on merger, given the pay scale 
of Rs. 610-1270, admissible to Assistant Education Officer in the Corpora· 
tion, with the designation Education Officer 'Unit'. 
D 
Respondent no. 1 filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming 
that he was entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 660-1600 meant for Education 
Officer of the Corporation as he was also an Education Officer. The 
High Court allowed the writ Petition. The letters patent appeal of the 
Corporation was dismissed. Aggrieved, the Corporation filed the present 
E appeal. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : Taking into account the pay which the respondent was 
getting in the erstwhile Garden Reach Municipality and his nature of 
duties, fixing of his pay comparable to the Asstt. Education Officer by 
application of Circular No. 31 dated 29.6.1985 can neither be said to be 
arbitrary nor irrational, on the other hand, the decision contained therein 
must be held to be wholly justified. The respondent has rightly been 
granted the pay scale of Rs. 610-1270 with the designation Education 
G Officer 'unit'. Before the merger, the respondent had been drawing the pay 
scale (of Rs. 380-910) much less than that of Assistant Education Officer 
under the Corporation. The High Court erred in allowing the claim of the 
respondent, since by such direction not only the respondent has been given 
promotion by two hierarchy but also he would march over the other Deputy 
H Education Officer under the Corporation. [835-H, 836-A, B, 835-G] 
( 
' 
MUNICIPAL COMMNR. v. PIJUSH KANT! DAS [PATIANAIK, J.] 
8

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.