Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7126 of 2011 ====================================================== Kare Lal Yadav, son of late Tetar Yadav, resident of Village Soti Chak, P.O. Kadra Chak, P.S.Shambhuganj, District Banka, presently nominated as UP MANTRI of Bihar Local Bodies Employees Federation, Bihar, Patna of Munger Nagar Parishad, Unit Munger .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Deputy Secretary-cum-Director, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The Special Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 5. The District Magistrate, Munger, District Munger 6. The Municipal Executive Officer, Munger Nagar Parishad, Munger 7. The Treasury Officer, Munger, District Munger 8. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7190 of 2011 ====================================================== Kare Lal Yadav Son Of Late Tetar Yadav, r/o Village-Soti Chak Po-Kadra Chak P.S.-Shambhuganj District-Banka, presently nominated as UP MANTRI Of Bihar Local Bodies Employees Federation, Bihar,Patna of Munger Nagar Parishad Unit,Munger. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary,Urban Development and Housing Department Govt.Of Bihar,Patna 2
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.7126 of 2011 (11) dt.30-01-2013 2 / 8 3. The Deputy Secretary-Cum-Director, Urban Development and Housing Department Government .of Bihar,Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Munger, Distt. Munger. 5. The Municpal Executive Officer Munger Nagar Parishad ,Munger. 6. The Treasury Officer, Munger District-Munger. 7. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 8. The Munger Nagar Parishad through its Executive Officer, Munger Nagar Parishad, Munger ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s Appearance : (In CWJC No.7126 of 2011)
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. M. D. Dwivedi, SC 23 Mr. Ram Narayan, AC to SC 23 For Munger Municipal Corp. : Mr. Ambika Bhagat, Advocate For the Accountant General : Mrs. Namrata Mishra, Advocate (In CWJC No.7190 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, SC 24 Mr. Arjun Prasad, A.C.to SC 24 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 11 30-01-2013 The petitioner, claiming to be Up Mantri of Bihar Local Bodies Employees Federation, Bihar, Patna of its Munger Unit, has filed the above two writ petitions raising the grievances on behalf of the employees, working or retired, of Munger Nagar Parishad, now upgraded as Munger Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as „respondent Corporation‟), regarding non-payment of arrears of salary with respect to working 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.7126 of 2011 (11) dt.30-01-2013 3 / 8 employees, and regarding non-payment of pension and Provident Fund amount with respect to retired employees. 2. In C.W.J.C. No. 7126 of 2011, a prayer has been made for issuance of direction to the respondent State of Bihar and its functionaries for release of adequate fund in favour of respondent-Corporation, so that arrears of salary of different employees of respondent Corporation for the period of 36 months from the year 2005 to 2011 are paid. In C.W.J.C. No. 7190 of 2011 a similar prayer has been made with respect to the retired employees of the respondent Munger Nagar Parishad, so that pension and Provident Fund amount are paid to the retired employees. 3. Initially, this Court was not inclined to entertain these two writ petitions filed by the petitioner in a representative capacity on behalf of all the employees, working or retired, of the respondent Corporation, as according to the considered opinion of this Court the claim for payment of arrears of salary or retrial dues can be appropriately raised and decided, once it is raised by a particular employee against his or her employer. In both the writ petitions specific claims with respect to specific employees have neither been appropriately raised nor appropriately answered by the respondents. In fact, claims with respect to these employees are required to be raised individually before the respondent Corporation and are required to be considered and decided by the functionaries of the respondent Corporation. However, certain material facts have not been disputed by the respondents in their counter affidavits, hence both the writ petitions have been heard
Decision
together and are being disposed of by this common order. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.7126 of 2011 (11) dt.30-01-2013 4 / 8 petitioner submits that there is no dispute that the salary for certain periods of different employees have not been paid by the respondent Corporation because of lack of availability of requisite fund. He submits that the State of Bihar is obliged to release adequate fund in favour of the respondent Corporation and only thereafter the arrears of salary or the retrial dues can be paid to different employees. A grievance is being raised that the fund released by the State of Bihar is being arbitrarily adjusted towards electricity bill against the respondent Corporation. He prays for appropriate directions for redressal of valid grievances of all the employees, working or retired, of the respondent Corporation, successor body of Munger Nagar Prishad. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation submits that though the request has been made to the State Government for release of the requisite fund, but adequate amount is not being released, therefore, admitted dues of the employees, working or retired, of the respondent Corporation are not being paid. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.3 in C.W.J.C. No. 7126 of 2011, wherein a vague statement has been made in paragraph 8 that the State Government has been releasing matching grant and certain percentage of salary from time to time, but it has not been stated anywhere in the counter affidavit that the State Government has discharged its liabilities in terms of Section 72 of The Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). The dues of the employees, either towards arrears of salary or towards pension or Provident Fund have not been disputed either by the respondent Corporation or by the respondent no.3 in their respective counter affidavits. 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.7126 of 2011 (11) dt.30-01-2013 5 / 8 7. In order to resolve the dispute raised in these two writ petitions, on examination of the Act, this Court finds that Section 39 (1) of the Act provides that all Officers and other employees of a Municipality shall receive their salaries and allowances out of the Municipal Fund. Section 39 (2) of the Act has empowered the Municipality for providing pension, gratuity, provident fund and other benefits, as per Rules and norms, as may be prescribed. Municipal Fund has been defined under Section 2 (61) of the Act so as to mean Municipal fund as referred to in Section 73 of the Act. Under Section 73 of the Act, the State Government has been given powers to issue directions from time to time as to the manner in which Municipal Fund is required to be spent. Section 72 of the Act saddles the State Government with financial assistance and it provides that the State Government would issue grants or financial assistance to the Municipality with or without direction to the manner in which such grants or financial assistance shall be spent. 8. It is the common case of the parties that the State Government has been issuing some grants from time to time in accordance with the provision of Section 72 of the Act. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that the amount of grant given by the State Government is adjusted towards electricity bill of respondent Corporation. Further, according to the respondent Corporation, adequate grant is not released by the State Government, so that the entire dues are cleared. The respondent Corporation in its counter affidavit filed through respondent no. 6 in C.W.J.C. No. 7126 of 2011 has not disputed the claims, raised on behalf of the employees by the petitioner. It has been specifically admitted that salary for 36 months in 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.7126 of 2011 (11) dt.30-01-2013 6 / 8 between the year 2005 to 2011 has not been paid to the employees of the respondent Corporation due to paucity of fund. The claims of the employees, in fact, have been admitted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Corporation. Paragraphs 6 to 9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 6 in C.W.J.C. No. 7126 of 2011 would be relevant and are reproduced hereinbelow :- “6.- That column No. 6 of this sanctioned letter states that the priority will be given by the local Urban Body to meet legal expenditure, retirement benefits and electric bill dues. It seems from the letter issued by Special Secretary of Department vide letter No. 1885 dated 1.4.2011 that the said matching grant has been adjusted in electric bill dues. This is the Government‟s decision, hence the Respondent No.6 nothing to do against this (Annexure-2 of the writ petition). to meet 7.- That it is further stated that liabilities of Nagar Nigam the expenditure on retiremental benefit as well as arrear salaries are as follows:- i) Retirement benefit Rs. 3.59 Crore ii) Arrear salary of 36 months Rs. 12.58 Crore iii) Every month for current salary Rs. 35 Lakh 8- That the salary for 36 months between 2005 to 2011 has not been paid due to paucity of fund, so, in view of the above fact and circumstances at present Munger Nagar Nigam is not in position to meet in all the arrear of liability. 9.- That at present tax collection per month in is Rs. 30 Lakh Munger Nagar Nigam approximately in which salary for 36 months between 2005 to 2011 has not been paid.” 9. After having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials available on the record, as also 7 Patna High Court CWJC No.7126 of 2011 (11) dt.30-01-2013 7 / 8 taking into consideration the relevant provision of the Act, as discussed above, both the writ petitions are finally disposed with following directions:- (1) The respondent Corporation and its functionaries shall make a demand/requisition for release of adequate fund with supporting documents before respondent no.2 within a maximum period of one month. The respondent Corporation shall give full details of its obligations towards the employees, working or retired, and reasons as to why those obligations have not been discharged by the Corporation. ( 2) On receipt of the aforesaid demand/requisition, the respondent No.2 and all other concerned functionaries of the State Government shall take a final decision in terms of Section 72 of the Act within a maximum period of two months from the date of requisition/demand made by the Corporation. The State Government and its functionaries shall make all endeavours to release the adequate amount of fund, so that admitted dues of the employees are paid within a reasonable period of time. (3) The individual employees shall file their separate representations before the Commissioner of Munger Municipal Corporation raising their individual claims with all supporting documents either for payment of arrears of salary or for payment of retrial dues within a maximum period of two months. The claims raised by the different employees shall be considered and decided by the Commissioner, Munger Municipal Corporation within a maximum period of six months. If on consideration of the materials, the Commissioner of Munger Municipal Corporation comes to a conclusion that their claims are admissible, then he shall further be obliged to issue consequential order for grant of 8 Patna High Court CWJC No.7126 of 2011 (11) dt.30-01-2013 8 / 8 such admissible claim with respect to each employee. If in case the Commissioner, Munger Municipal Corporation comes to a conclusion that the claim raised by individual employee is not admissible, then he shall decide his or her claim by a reasoned and speaking order within the aforesaid period of six months. 10. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Kanth/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)