Full Judgment Text
Non-reportable
2024 INSC 423
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
{{{[
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 9127-9132 OF 2018
Solapur Municipal Corporation … Appellant
Versus
Shankarrao Govindrao Patil and others Etc. … Respondents
with
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9133 OF 2018
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KUMAR, J
1. Solapur Municipal Corporation, Solapur, preferred six appeals
aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.07.2013 passed by a Division
Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in effect, allowing Writ
Petition Nos. 197 of 2012, 2011 of 2003 and 2432 of 2003, and also the
Signature Not Verified
later order dated 08.08.2014 passed by the Division Bench, dismissing
Digitally signed by
Nisha Khulbey
Date: 2024.05.15
18:15:24 IST
Reason:
its review petitions filed in the aforestated three writ petitions. Thereafter,
1
another Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
followed the judgment dated 31.07.2013 and allowed W.P. No. 2463 of
2010 filed by another employee similarly situated to the petitioners in the
other three writ petitions on 09.03.2017. Assailing this order, Solapur
Municipal Corporation filed Civil Appeal No. 9133 of 2018.
2. By order dated 24.04.2015, this Court stayed the operation of the
impugned judgment dated 31.07.2013 till the next date of hearing.
Thereafter, while granting leave on 24.08.2018, the interim order was
made absolute.
3. The issue for consideration in these appeals is as to the status of
the respondents herein, viz ., the petitioners in the four writ petitions
before the High Court, who were engaged in the service of Majarewadi
Gram Panchayat, which was merged with Solapur Municipal Corporation
(hereinafter, ‘the Corporation’) along with ten other gram panchayats
with effect from 05.05.1992. On 25.03.2003, the respondents herein,
along with others, were regularized in the service of the Corporation with
effect from 01.02.2003. Their claim before the High Court, however, was
that they should be treated as having been absorbed in the service of
the Corporation from 05.05.1992 itself, in view of the provisions of
Section 493(5)(c) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act,
1949. On the other hand, the Corporation contended that they were
2
continued on daily wage basis till 01.02.2003 and, therefore, their
employment from 05.05.1992 could not be treated as regular service.
4. The Division Bench placed reliance on the affidavit filed by a
Section Officer of the Urban Development Department, Government of
Maharashtra, confirming that 300 posts had been sanctioned in the
Corporation to accommodate the employees of the erstwhile gram
panchayats which had merged with it from 05.05.1992, and held that it
followed therefrom that the employment of such persons by the
Corporation stood regularized with effect from 05.05.1992. The Division
Bench, accordingly, disposed of the three writ petitions directing that the
services rendered by the writ petitioners before 05.05.1992 with the
gram panchayat till 05.05.1992 shall be treated as regular service
rendered to the Corporation; that the services rendered by them from
05.05.1992 till 01.02.2003 shall also be deemed to be regular service
rendered to the Corporation; and that, in view of the above, all service
benefits as well as retirement benefits should be extended to them, on
the footing that the services rendered by them from their respective
dates of appointment by the gram panchayat till 01.02.2003 shall be
deemed to be services rendered to the Corporation. The Corporation,
thereupon, preferred review petitions but the same were dismissed by
the Division Bench on 08.08.2014. The said order reflects that the Bench
found no error apparent on the face of the record, warranting review of
3
its judgment, and dismissed the review petitions. The order passed in
the fourth writ petition thereafter was on the same lines as the earlier
judgment.
5. The main issue for consideration before us is as to the
employment status of the respondents herein in the service of
Majarewadi Gram Panchayat. Pertinent to note, the respondents claim to
be the regular employees of the said gram panchayat as on the
appointed date, i.e., 05.05.1992. If so, they would be entitled to claim the
benefit of Section 493 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act,
1949 (hitherto, known as the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations
Act, 1949). Section 493 states that the transitory provisions in Appendix
IV shall apply to the constitution of the Corporation and other matters
specified therein. Clause 5 in Appendix IV is titled “Continuation of
appointments, taxes, budget estimates, assessments, etc.” and, under
sub-clause (a), to the extent relevant for our purpose, it states that any
appointment made under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, or
any other law in force in any local area constituted to be a city
immediately before the appointed day, shall, in so far as it is not
inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, continue in force until it is
superseded by any appointment made under the Act or any other law as
aforesaid, as the case may be. Clause 5(c) states that all officers and
servants in the employ of the said municipality or local authority
4
immediately before the appointed day shall be officers and servants
employed by the Corporation under the Act and shall, until other
provision is made in accordance with the provisions of the Act, receive
salaries and allowances and be subject to the conditions of service to
which they were entitled to on such date. The first proviso thereto states
that the service rendered by such officers and servants before the
appointed day shall be deemed to be service rendered in the service of
the Corporation.
6. In the light of the above statutory setting, the employment status of
the respondents in Majarewadi Gram Panchayat assumes great
significance. It is only if they were regular employees of the said gram
panchayat that they would be entitled to seek protection of Clause 5 in
Appendix IV to the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. The
Division Bench proceeded on the footing that they were regular
employees of the gram panchayat or, at least, treated them as such
upon the sanction of 300 posts by the Government of Maharashtra.
However, we find that in a similar writ petition, viz ., W.P. No. 228 of 1996,
when the employees were referred to by the High Court in its interim
order as ‘part-time employees of the gram panchayat’, the employees
union filed a special leave petition before this Court, aggrieved by that
nomenclature. The special leave petition was dismissed, observing that
5
the status of the employees would have to be decided on its own merits
at the stage of the final hearing of the writ petition.
7. A copy of Resolution No. 98 dated 31.08.2002 passed by the
Corporation is placed before us and it reflects that the 300 employees
who were brought in due to boundary expansion of the Corporation were
resolved to be made permanent from the date of approval, but any
amount of earlier difference would not be permissible. It was further
resolved that their services with the Corporation would be considered for
pension and gratuity. It was also stated that, for including these 300
employees in permanent service from the date of Government approval,
the Resolution was approved. Acting upon this Resolution, the
Government sanctioned 300 posts on 25.03.2003 and consequential
proceedings of regularization were issued by the Corporation, stating
that the daily wage workers were appointed with effect from 01.02.2003
and clarifying that they would not be entitled to get any arrears in respect
of their service in the Corporation prior to that date.
8. The bone of contention between the Corporation and the
respondents is whether the respondents were daily wage workers in the
service of Majarewadi Gram Panchayat or whether they were its regular
employees, whereby they could be straightaway treated as servants of
the Corporation under Clause 5(c) in Appendix IV to the Maharashtra
Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.
6
9. It is an admitted fact that no material was produced by the
respondents before the High Court to establish that they were regular
employees of Majarewadi Gram Panchayat before the appointed date.
However, before us, a photocopy of Majarewadi Gram Panchayat’s
Resolution No. 83(8) dated 20.03.1992, in Marathi along with an English
translation, has been produced. Therein, it is stated that all the
employees working with Majarewadi Gram Panchayat till the end of
31.03.1992 were permanently appointed on regular salary, together with
dearness allowance and other allowances. The names of such
employees, their designations and their salaries were set out thereafter.
Apart from this document, original orders of appointment in Marathi
issued by Majarewadi Gram Panchayat, along with English translations,
to some of the respondents have also been produced. The orders of
appointment are all dated 20.03.1992. These documents appear to be
genuine, on the face of it, and are duly authenticated by the officials
concerned.
10. The Corporation, on the other hand, would refer to Resolution
No.83(9) passed by Majarewadi Gram Panchayat on 20.03.1992,
whereby several appointments of seasonal nature were made on a
temporary basis. Details of some of the appointments so made are also
produced. It appears that, in all, 48 such appointments were made on
that day. A copy of the Resolution, filed as Annexure A-7, however
7
indicates that the appointments of those persons were to come into
effect only from 01.04.1992. Notably, Resolution No.83(8) was earlier
than Resolution No. 83(9), though both were passed on the same day,
viz., 20.03.1992. By Resolution No. 83(8), all the employees working
with the gram panchayat till 31.03.1992 were permanently appointed
whereas Resolution No. 83(9) specifically stated that the 48 temporary
appointments made thereunder were to come into effect only on
01.04.1992. Therefore, those 48 appointees were not entitled to claim
the benefit of Resolution No. 83(8).
11. It is further contended by the Corporation that some of the so-
called regular appointments are open to doubt and question. It is pointed
out that one Ilahibaksh Maqbool Bhagwan was only sixteen years of age
when he was appointed on 01.12.1990 as a ‘water man’ in the service of
the gram panchayat. Reference is also made to the Draft Notification
dated 01.11.1991, reflecting the details of the proposed merger of the
gram panchayats with the Corporation, issued by the Government of
Maharashtra long before the happening of the events in Majarewadi
Gram Panchayat in March, 1992, and it is contended that the entire
exercise of the gram panchayat, even if true, was not a bonafide one
and that no benefit could be extended to the respondents on the
strength thereof.
8
12. Given the above controversy, we are conscious of the fact that the
High Court had no occasion to consider it, as the documents in question
were produced before us for the very first time. Though, ordinarily, we
would not allow documentary evidence to be produced belatedly at the
last stage, we are also mindful of the fact that the rights of several
workmen are at stake and the issue for consideration would invariably
turn upon the conclusions that are to be drawn from these new
documents. We are, therefore, of the view that minute verification and
examination of these documents would necessarily have to be
undertaken. Such an exercise would be more appropriate before the
High Court rather than this Court. Further documentary evidence may
have to be led, perhaps, in relation to these new documents and that is
not a task that we would normally undertake in exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 136 of the Constitution.
13. Ergo , we are of the opinion that the matter would have to be
reconsidered by the High Court of Maharashtra at Bombay in the light of
and on the strength of the new documents.
14. The appeals are accordingly allowed, setting aside the judgment
dated 31.07.2013 in Writ Petition Nos. 197 of 2012, 2011 of 2003 and
2432 of 2003 and the order dated 08.08.2014 passed in the review
petitions filed therein along with the order dated 09.03.2017 passed in
W.P. No. 2463 of 2010 and remanding the matter to the High Court for
9
reconsideration. The writ petitions shall stand restored to the file of the
High Court. Both parties may be permitted to bring on record such
documentary evidence as is deemed fit and necessary by the High
Court, for proper reconsideration of the case. The entire matter is left
open for adjudication afresh by the High Court. Given the antiquity of this
matter, we would request the High Court to give it due priority and
dispose it of as expeditiously as possible.
In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
............................,J
(A.S. BOPANNA)
.............................,J
(SANJAY KUMAR)
May 15, 2024
New Delhi.
10