Ramlal Satpute vs State of M.P. and others

S.L. Jain, J.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 13-5-2002, passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 801/97, the appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent.

The facts shorn of details and necessary for disposal of this appeal are that by way of Writ Petition No. 801/97, the appellant, who was appointed as Education Instructor by order dated 30-3-1995 (Annexure P-1) and thereafter, handed over additional charge of the Secretary of Gram Panchayat Khandaphari, prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondents to pay him the honorarium payable to the Secretary of the Panchayat and to allow him to work as Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. The appellant also sought a writ against Annaram Choudhary so that he may not obstruct working of the appellant as Secretary of the Panchayat. According to the appellant he was getting honorarium of Rs. 100/- per month as Education Instructor. Honorarium for Panchayat Secretary was Rs. 200/- per month which from November, 1995 had been increased to Rs. 500/- per month. He had been paid honorarium for the additional charge of Secretary at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month, for the months of May, June, July and August, 1995.

The grievance of the appellant is that the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat can be appointed by the State Government only and Annaram Chaudhary could not have been appointed as the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat by resolution of the Panchayat. He further submits that he filed an appeal u/s 91 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Sub Divisional Officer, Lanji, who allowed the appeal of the appellant and directed the Panchayat to continue the service of the appellant till a regular Secretary was appointed by the State Government but the Sarpanch of the Panchayat defied the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and continued Annaram Chaudhary to perform duties as Secretary, of the Panchayat. He also approached the higher authorities but his grievance was not redressed. Therefore, he approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 801/97, but the learned single Judge did not decide his claim to continue in service and for issuance of writ of quo-warranto against Annaram Chaudhary. Hence this appeal.

The allegations made by the appellant in his writ petition were controverted by the respondents by reply to the petition in which it was pointed out by the Sarpanch and the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lanji that the appellant was not a resident of Gram Panchayat area and he was not a local man and remained absent from duty, therefore, the matter was considered in a special meeting of the Gram Panchyat and a decision was taken for removal of the petitioner from the post of Secretary. In this meeting it was also decided to appoint a person belonging to scheduled caste on the post of Secretary. It was also the case of the respondents that if the petitioner was aggrieved by removal, the remedy available to him was by way of an appeal u/s 91 of the Act. It was also stated that the appellant was already working as Instructor in the Education Centre and he cannot claim double employment.

We have heard Shri H.S. Ruprah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner.

The contention of Shri Ruprah is three fold:-

(1) The Secretary can be appointed by the State Government only. Panchayat has no right, authority or power to appoint a Secretary and the appointment of Annaram Chaudhary is without the authority of law.

(2) Regular Secretary could have been appointed only where the post of Secretary was vacant. The appellant was already performing the duties of Secretary while holding the additional charge, therefore, another Secretary could not have been appointed.

(3) In the absence of the order of dismissal, removal or termination, the appellant is still continuing in service.

We have carefully examined the record. In the writ petition filed by the appellant he referred to resolution of Panchayat dated 27-10-1995 and the order of Sub Divisional Officer, Lanji, dated 29-2-1996, but he has not challenged the resolution of Gram Sabha dated 15-7-1996 (Annexure R-1) which was passed subsequent to the order of Sub Divisional Officer and by which the petitioner''s attachment as Secretary was cancelled. After the cancellation of his attachment the appellant cannot claim for his reinstatement for an additional charge of the post of secretary on the strength of the stale order of Sub Divisional Officer. Annaram Chaudhary has been appointed as Secretary as per resolution dated 15-7-1996 (Annexure R-1).

Regarding the arrears, the learned single Judge issued the direction that if the petitioner makes representation to the Gram Panchayat with regard to the period anterior to the appointment of respondent No. 4, as per resolution Annexure R-1, for which the petitioner has not been paid honorarium the representation shall be considered by the said Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the present appeal is misconceived.

The contention of Shri Ruprah that the appointment of Secretary can be made only by the State Government and not by the Panchayat cannot be accepted. As per Annexure P-4, filed by the appellant himself in the writ petition, it is clear that after 12th September, 1995 no appointment on the post of Secretary will be made by the Government and where the Secretaries are working on the additional charge they will be relieved from the additional charge. After 12th September, 1995 as per Annexure P-4 the Panchayat was competent to relieve the appellant and appoint a Secretary.

If at all, the appellant had any grievance regarding Annexure R-1, the remedy available with him was to file an appeal u/s 91 of the Act. The appellant has not challenged the order Annexure R-1 either by way of an appeal or in the writ petition. Therefore, the first contention raised by Shri Ruprah is devoid of merit.

The second contention of the learned counsel, appearing for the appellant also has no force. The post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat Khandaphari was actually vacant. The appellant was discharging the duties of Secretary holding the additional charge. As per directions given in Annexure P-4, the person holding an additional charge was to be relieved. Therefore, the appellant was rightly relieved from the additional charge.

The appointment of appellant as Secretary of Gram Panchayat Khandaphari was not a regular appointment. He was appointed as an Education Instructor by order dated 20-3-1995 (Annexure P-1) and he was handed over additional charge of the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. The appellant cannot claim double appointments. On appointment of regular Secretary he was relieved of the additional charge of the Secretary, therefore, it cannot be said that he was dismissed, removed or terminated from the service. Thus, the last contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant also holds no water.

Since the appellant has not challenged the order Annexure R-1 by which the Gram Panchayat resolved to relieve the appellant and appoint Annaram Chaudhary as Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, the present appeal is misconceived.

Regarding the grievance of the appellant that honorarium has not been paid to him, the learned single Judge has directed that in the case the appellant files a representation in this regard, it shall be considered by the Gram Panchayat. This redresses the grievance of the appellant.

For the foregoing reasons, no interference in the order impugned is called for and the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed in limine. There shall be no order as to costs.