Surya Kant Jha vs The Administrator, Patna Municipal Corporation and Others

Aftab Alam, J.—The Petitioner is an employee of the Patna Municipal Corporation. He is working as Tax Collector from April, 1982. He seeks a direction to the competent authority in the Corporation to regularise his appointment as Tax Collector and to give him the higher pay-scale admissible to that post. The claim of the Petitioner is based on the ground that he is working as Tax Collector on a whole-time basis and against sanctioned post for the past 18 years.

The material facts of the case are very brief and simple. The Petitioner holds the substantive post of Sanitary Supervisor but by an order, dated 19.4.1982 (Annexure 2) issued by the Executive Officer, New Capital Circle, Patna Municipal Corporation in pursuance of order No. 39 (Estab.), dated 16.3.1982, he was given permission to work as Tax Collector. It is an admitted position that on the basis of that order, the Petitioner started to work as Tax Collector and has been working in that capacity continuously and uninterruptedly or the past 18 years. He, however, continues to remain in the lower scale of Sanitary Supervisor.

The Petitioner''s claim is resisted on the ground that he was simply given permission to work as Tax Collector and the order, dated 19.4.82 cannot be construed as giving him promotion to the post of Tax Collector. It is further pointed out that the post of Tax Collector is not the promotional post for a Sanitary Supervisor; The promotional post for a Sanitary Supervisor is Sanitary Inspector and the post of Tax Collector falls in a different line of promotions. According to the Respondent authorities, the Petitioner cannot, therefore, be promoted/appointed/regularised on the post of Tax Collector.

Mr. Rupak Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submitted that the objections raised on behalf of the Respondents were quite unfounded inasmuch as in the past a number of employees holding the post of Sanitary Supervisor were given promotion to the post of Tax Collector. He invited my attention to office order No. 2618, issued by the Deputy Administrator under his memo. No. 62350, dated 26.11.1976 (Annexure 3). By this office order, three employees of the Corporation, namely, Parmanand Singh, Madan Lal and Braj Nandan Mishra were promoted to the post of Salaried Tax Collector. Out of the three promotees the first two held the post of Sanitary Supervisor and the third promotee was a Peon. Parmanand Singh and Madal Lal undeniably continued to work as Tax Collectors till date; Braj Nandan Mishra retired from service working as Tax Collector.

Mr. Rupak Kumar next invited my attention to office order No. 47 issued by the Administrator under his memo No. 82, dated 3.2.1985 (Annexure 4). By this office order one Tapeshwar Singh, Sanitary Supervisor who was working as Tax Collector from before was regularised on that post with immediate effect. Tapeshwar Singh also continues to work as Tax Collector.

Mr. Rupak Kumar also invited my attention to office order No. 27/95 issued by the Administrator under his memo No. 132, dated 15.6.1995 (Annexure 10). By this office order, eight employees of the Corporation, all holding the post of Sanitary Supervisors, were promoted as Tax Collectors. He also invited my attention to the proceedings of the meeting of the Establishment Committee held on 1.7.1994 in which a decision was taken that in the interest of collection of revenue surplus employees could be asked to work as Tax Collectors.

Mr. Jitendera Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that any reliance on the proceedings of the Establishment Committee, dated 1.7.1994 was misconceived because it only envisaged a temporary working arrangement in the interest of revenue collection. He also pointed out that office order No. 27/95, dated 15.6.1995 by which eight Sanitary Supervisors were given promotion as Tax Collectors was directed to be kept in abeyance by another order issued by the Administrator on 31.7.1995.

Mr. Rupak Kumar, however, submitted that notwithstanding the later order, dated 31.7.95, the eight employees named in office order No. 27/95 were allowed to continue as Tax Collectors and it would be evident from the order, dated 8.7.2000 (Annexure 13) that they were treated as Tax Collectors and were assigned duties on that basis.

Even if it is accepted that by office order No. 27/95, dated 15.6.95 the eight Sanitary Supervisors were not given promotion but were simply ''allowed'' to work as tax-Collectors, it is undeniable that by Virtue of orders, dated 26.11.76 (Annexure 3) and 3.2.95 (Annexure 4) atleast four persons, previously holding the posts of Sanitary Supervisor were promoted as Tax Collectors and they continue to hold that post in the high scale of pay till today.

Mr. Singh submitted that in the past such irregular actions were taken but that may not justify the Petitioner''s claim for promotion as Tax Collector.

I am unable to agree. Though itself describing them as irregular, the Corporation appears to be in the habit of making such promotions and the last one was made in the year, 1995. Though office order No. 27/95 was directed to be kept in abeyance, still the eight employees named therein are allowed to work as Tax Collectors and are treated as Tax Collectors by the Corporation.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that for the past 18 years the Petitioner is continuously working on that post, it appears to me that denial of his regularisation against that post would be wholly unfair, unjust and reasonable. The competent authority in the Corporation is accordingly directed to regularise the Petitioner on the post of Tax Collector and to give him the higher pay scale admissible to that post. The necessary orders in this regard must be issued within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

If the present administration of the Corporation is really sincere in putting its house in order, as suggested by Mr. Singh, it should be well advised to consider all cases of Sanitary Supervisors who were asked to work as Tax Collectors and to either regularise them on the posts of Tax Collector or to revert them back to their substantive posts, fixing a reasonably cut off date for the purpose.

In the result, this writ petition is allowed but with no order as to costs.