Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Audit Karmachari Sangh Throughpresident R G Durve vs Minicipal Commissioner

High Court Of Gujarat|01 August, 2012
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned resolution dated 01.06.1992 passed by the Standing Committee of the Baroda Municipal Corporation and the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in withdrawing the special pay which is being given to the members of the petitioner Union serving in the
dated 01.01.1992 passed by the General Body of the Baroda Municipal Corporation.
2. The brief facts of the present petition are that the Chief Auditor, Municipal Corporation Baroda made a proposal to the Secretary of the Municipal Corporation Baroda for sanction of the special pay in favour of the employees of the Audit Department in view of their peculiar duties.
2.1 In the aforesaid recommendation, prior to the conversion of the Municipal Borough into Baroda Municipal Corporation, there was a practice of pre- auditing the accounts and the said practice is still prevalent today. From amongst all the Corporations in Gujarat, the practice of pre-auditing the accounts is prevalent only in Baroda Municipal Corporation. That the Bill etc., are checked prior to making of the payment. The aforesaid pre-auditing is required to be completed within a particular time limit.
2.3 The aforesaid recommendations made by the Chief Auditor of the Corporation were duly accepted by the Standing Committee of the Corporation which passed Resolution dated 28.11.1991. The aforesaid resolution passed by the Standing Committee is further sanctioned and confirmed by the Baroda Municipal Corporation by its resolution dated 01.01.1992. Hence the petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Standing Committee of respondent No.4 Corporation has passed the resolution dated 01.06.1992 accepting the recommendation of the Commissioner for withdrawal of the Special pay, which was withdrawn vide impugned Resolution.
4. The impugned action seeking to withdraw the special pay from the employees of the Audit Department of the Corporation will result into demoralizing the employees in the said department. After several efforts, the special pay is sanctioned in favour of the said employees. The purpose of giving separate and independent status of the Audit Department under the provisions of the Act is to maintain the independence of the said department from the other departments of the Corporation.
4.1 The impugned G.R. has been passed by the State Government without hearing the employees of the Audit Department of the Corporation.
4.2 In the instant case, since no hearing is given to the employees in the Audit Department of the Corporation before passing the impugned resolution. Assuming without admitting that the provisions of Section 451 of the Act are applicable, in a situation where the order or resolutions are already executed, it is submitted that the powers contemplated under Section 451 of the Act are of emergency nature and can never be applied after a period of more than 5 months. Section 451 of the Act is not applicable to the order or resolution or doing of anything as contemplated under Section 451 of the Act. The said resolution dated 01.06.1992 passed by the Standing Committee of the Baroda Municipal Corporation is required to be quashed and set aside.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayers made in the petition.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that in view of the fact that there is a serious dispute about paying special pay to the other employees of the Corporation and the petitioner are deprived of the special pay, it will be appropriate to the petitioners to go before the State Government, as the State Government can exercise the powers.
6.1 The petitioner is directed to approach respondent No.5 within a period of five weeks and the State Government is directed to decide the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the order passed by the State Government is against the petitioner. No recovery should be made for four months The petition is disposed of, accordingly.
(K.S. Jhaveri, J.) koshti/
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Audit Karmachari Sangh Throughpresident R G Durve vs Minicipal Commissioner

Court

High Court Of Gujarat

JudgmentDate
01 August, 2012
Judges
  • Ks Jhaveri
Advocates
  • Mr Mk Vakharia