REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1765 OF 2023
[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.
18911 OF 2021]
Maharashtra Rajya Padvidhar Prathamik 
Shikshak Va Kendra Pramukh Sabha          .…Appellant
VERSUS
Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.              .…Respondents
JUDGMENT
Surya Kant, J.
  Leave granted. 
2. The   issue   that   requires   our   consideration   in   this   case   is
whether   the   services   rendered   by   primary   teachers   while   in   the
service   of   the   Zilla   Parishad   (hereinafter   “ZP”)   deserves   to   be
counted   towards   their   seniority   after   the   transfer   and   merger   of
Page| 1

their   services   into   the   Pune   Municipal   Corporation   (hereinafter
“PMC”)? 
FACTS : 
3. The State of Maharashtra is vested with the power to specify
a   `larger   urban   area’   of   a   municipal   corporation   under   Section
3(1)   of   the   Maharashtra   Municipal   Corporation   Act,   1949   (in
short,   “MMC   Act”).   Such   an   area   can   further   be   altered   by
issuing a Notification under Section 3(3).  The expression, “larger
urban area” is defined under Article 243Q(2) of the Constitution,
which says that:­
“ (2)  In   this   article,   “a   transitional   area”,   a   “smaller
urban area” or “a larger urban area” means such area as
the Governor may, having regard to the population of the
area,   the   density   of   the   population   therein,   the   revenue
generated   for   local   administration,   the   percentage   of
employment   in   non­   agricultural   activities,   the   economic
importance   or   such   other   factors   as   he   may   deem   fit,
specify   by   public   notification   for   the   purposes   of   this
Part.”
4. State of Maharashtra in exercise of its powers under Section
3(1)   of   MMC   Act   decided   to   expand   the   territorial   limits   of   the
PMC   and,   consequently,   the   geographical   area   of   38   villages
which  were  part  of  the  Pune  ZP were  merged  into   the  PMC  with
effect from 01.11.1999. Post the merger, primary teachers as well
Page| 2

as employees from  other  departments who were serving  in those
villages were given the option to have themselves transferred and
absorbed into the services of PMC.
5. In   this   context,   Sections   3(1)   &   3(3)   of   the   MMC   Act   being
relevant are reproduced below: ­
“3.   Specification   of   larger   urban   areas   and
constitution   of   Corporations.   [(1)   The   Corporation   for
every City constituted under this Act existing on the date
of   coming   into   force   of   the   Maharashtra   Municipal
Corporations   and   Municipal   Councils   (Amendment)   Act,
1994, specified as a larger urban area in the notification
issued in respect thereof under clause (2) of Article 243­Q
of the Constitution of India, shall be deemed to be a duly
constituted   Municipal   Corporation   for   the   larger   urban
area so specified forming a City, known by the name "The
Municipal Corporation of the City of....";
xxx xxx xxx
(3)   [(a)Subject   to   the   provisions   of   sub­section   (2),   the
State   Government]   may   also   from   time   to   time   after
consultation   with   the   Corporation   by   notification   in   the
Official   Gazette ,   alter   the   limits   specified   for   any   larger
urban area under sub­section (1) or sub­section (2) so as
to include therein, or to exclude therefrom, such area as
is specified in the notification.
(b)   Where   any   area   is   included   within   the   limits   of
the   [larger   urban   area]   under   clause   (a),   any
appointments,   notifications,   notices,   taxes,   orders,
schemes,   licences,   permissions,   rules,   bye­laws   or   forms
made,   issued,   imposed   or   granted   under   this   Act   or   any
other   law,   which   are   for   the   time   being   in   force   in
the   [larger   urban   area]   shall,   notwithstanding   anything
contained in any other law for the time being in force but
save   as   otherwise   provided   in   section   129A   or   any   other
provision   of   this   Act,   apply   to   and   be   in   force   in   the
additional area also from the date that area is included in
the City.
xxx xxx xxx ”
Page| 3

6. Respondent Nos. 5 to 79 were working as Primary Teachers
in   the   Pune   ZP.   They   were   appointed   on   different   dates   prior   to
01.11.1999.   They   too   were   given   option   for   their   merger   in   the
PMC. They opted to accede to the absorption and joined the PMC.
It   may   be   relevant   to   mention   at   this   stage   that   with   a   view   to
regulate   the   conditions   of   service   of   employees   who   are   merged
from   the   Zilla   Parishad   to   Municipalities,   the   State   Government
had passed a Resolution (hereinafter “GR”) dated 13.08.1990, the
relevant part whereof reads as follows: ­ 
“xxx xxx xxx
government   was   considering   whether   to   consider   service
provided   for   Zilla   Parishad   by   said   teachers   should   be
considered   for   pay   fixing,   seniority,   retirement   benefit,
etc.in   Municipal   Council/Municipal   Corporation
education department. Government is passing order now
regarding  same that,  service in Zilla  Parishad of  primary
teachers   should   be   considered   for   pay   fixing,   seniority,
retirement   benefit,   etc.   in   Municipal   Council/Municipal
Corporation   service,   who   are   transferred   under   rule   in
concerned   Municipal   Corporation/Municipal   Council
education   board   from   concerned   Zilla   Parishad   for
reasons   mentioned   above.   but   concerned   Zilla   Parishad
should   accept   liability   of   service   prior   to   classification   of
concerned   primary   teachers.   government   grant   shall   be
passed for. Zilla Parishad at the rate fixed thereon.
2.   This   government   resolution   is   passed   under   official
approval   of   town   development   department,   village
development department and finance department 
and   under   official   reference   ­   1045   /   number­cr­1045/
86/ser­4, dated 18.8.1986 of finance department.
xxx  xxx xxx”
                                       ( sic. )
Page| 4

7. The GR reproduced above unambiguously provides that the
services   rendered   by   teachers   in   a   ZP   shall   be   taken   into
consideration   when   fixing   pay,   seniority,   retiral   benefits   etc.   on
their  permanent  transfer  to  Municipalities.   Despite the  seeming
clarity on this point, there arose a dispute in respect to fixation of
inter   se   seniority   between   the   teachers   who   were   initially
recruited in the ZP and were later on absorbed into the PMC, as
opposed   to   the   primary   teachers   who   had   been   part   of   the
services of the PMC from the very beginning. There were a series
of   correspondence   on   this   issue   between   the   Chief   Executive
Officer of the ZP and the Administrative Officer, Shikshan Mandal
of   the   PMC,   including   two   letters   dated   11.10.1999   and
02.07.2011.   These   communications   do   not   appear   to   us   of   any
legal   consequence   given   the   fact   that   the   GR   dated   13.08.1990
has   not   been   rescinded,   modified   or   superseded   by   any
subsequent government resolution. 
8. The   Appellant   is   an   Association   formed   by   the   primary
teachers   who   were   directly   recruited   by   the   PMC.   Its   members
have an   inter   se seniority dispute with Respondent Nos. 5 to 79.
A   draft   seniority  list   was   circulated  by   the   PMC   which   proposed
Page| 5

to   assign   seniority   to   Respondent   Nos.   5   to   79   from   the   dates
they   joined   service   in   the   ZP.   The   PMC,   however,   reversed   its
tentative   decision   vide   letter   on   04.02.2017   which   stated   that
Respondent   Nos.   5   to   79   would   be   assigned   seniority   only   from
the   date   of   their   absorption   into   PMC.   The   private   respondents
raised   objections   against   the   aforementioned   decision,   which
resulted   in   the   constitution   of   a   committee   of   five   officers   of   the
PMC   for   consideration   of   those   objections.   On   the
recommendations   of   the   Committee   a   final   seniority   list   was
eventually   issued   on   20.02.2018   in   which   the   seniority   of
Respondent   Nos.   5   to   79   was   fixed   only   from   the   date   of   their
absorption into the PMC. For the sake of specificity, the outcome
of   the   Committee’s   recommendations   was   that   the   service
rendered by Respondent Nos. 5 to 79 in their roles within the ZP
stood excluded from the length of their service.
9. Aggrieved,   Respondent   Nos.   5   to   79   approached   the   High
Court   and   a   Division   Bench   vide   the   impugned   judgment   dated
1 st
  October, 2021  has  allowed  their  writ  petition  in   the  following
terms: ­ 
“52. A conjoint reading of Section 493 which provides for
transitory   provisions   read   with   Clause   5   of   Appendix   IV
clearly indicates that the service rendered by the officers
Page| 6

and   servants   before   in   the   employment   of   the
Municipality or the local authority immediately before the
appended   date   shall   be   the   officers   and   servants
employed by the Corporation under the said Act and the
services rendered by such officers and servants before the
appointed date shall be deemed to be service rendered in
the   service   of   the   Corporation.   The   second   proviso   to
Clause   5   of   Appendix   IV   empowers   the   Corporation   to
discontinue,   the   service   of   any   officer   or   servant   who   in
its   opinion   is   not   necessary   or   suitable   to   the
requirements   of   the   municipal   service,   after   giving   such
officer   or   servant,   such   notice   as   is   required   to   be   given
by   the   terms   of   his   employment.   Such   discontinued
employee   shall   be   entitled   to   such   leave,   pension   or
gratuity as he would have been entitled to take or receive
on being invalided out of service if this Act had not been
passed.
53.   It   is   not   the   case   of   the   respondent   no.1   or
respondent   no.3   that   service   of   any   of   these   petitioners
were   discontinued   by   the   respondent   no.1   under   second
proviso   to  Clause  5  of   Appendix  IV  on  the  ground  of   not
being   suitable   to   the   requirements   of   the   municipal
service   or   on   the   ground   that   their   services   were   not
necessary for the respondent no.1 – Corporation.
54.   In   our   view,   the   said   provision   under   Section   493   of
the   Maharashtra   Municipal   Corporations   Act   read   with
Clause S(c) of the Appendix IV would also apply in case of
en   bloc   transfer   of   the   property   forming   part   of   such
village   which   were   transferred   to   the   Municipal
Corporation   along   with   the   schools,   employees   and   the
students.   In   our   view,   the   seniority   of   each   of   these
petitioners thus will have to be counted from their initial
date of appointment in the schools run by Zilla Parishad
and not from the date of their transfer in the schools run
by the respondent no.1 Corporation. The impugned order
showing   the   petitioners   below   the   then   existing
employees   of   the   respondent   no.   1   by   considering   the
date   of   their   transfer   in   the   schools   run   by   the
respondent   no.1   as   the   date   of   appointment   is   totally
illegal and contrary to Section 493 read with Clause S(c)
of Appendix IV thereto.”
10. The   Appellant   Association,   representing   those   primary
teachers who have been recruited directly by the PMC and whose
Page| 7

seniority is adversely affected by the inclusion of the period spent
by   Respondent   Nos.   5   to   79   in   ZP   towards   their   seniority   after
absorption into the PMC, has now filed this appeal.
SUBMISSIONS:
11. Mr. Vinay Navare, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant
advanced three submissions:  
(i) Firstly,   he   argued   that   Respondent   Nos.   5   to   79   were
given   a   choice   to  either   seek   transfer  into   the   PMC   or
to   continue   with   their   services   in   the   schools   run   by
the   ZP.   The   respondent­teachers   consciously   made   a
choice to be assimilated into the PMC. Since this was a
case   involving   ‘voluntary   transfer’   rather   than   an
‘administrative transfer’, they cannot claim the benefit
of their past service towards fixation of seniority.
(ii) Secondly,   it   was   a   case   of   expansion   of   the   `larger
urban   area’   belonging   to   the   PMC   and,   hence,
conditions  of  service  of Respondent  Nos. 5 to  79 shall
remain protected only to the extent as provided under
Section   3(3)(b)   of   the   MMC   Act.   The   said   provision   is
conspicuously   silent   with   respect   to   protection   and
Page| 8

consideration of past service. Section 493 of the MMC
Act  read  with  Clause  5(c)  of Appendix  (IV)  relied upon
by   the   High   Court   will   be   attracted   only   in   a   case   of
newly   constituted   Municipality.   That   being   not   the
case here, the High Court gravely erred in relying upon
the   said   provision.   Shri   Navare   explained   that   the
legislative intent can be discerned from the fact that a
provision   similar   to   the   first   proviso   to   Clause   5(c)   of
Appendix   IV,   has   not   been   added   to   Section   3(3)(b)   of
the MMC Act. Reliance was placed on   Union of   India
v.   Shiv   Dayal   Soin   &   Sons   (P)   Ltd. 1
,   wherein   the
following was observed:
“6.   ……   As   a   canon   of   statutory
interpretation,   expression   unaus   Est   exclusion
arteries , what is expressly mentioned in one place
but   not   in   another   must   be   taken   to   have   been
deliberately omitted .  ……..”
(iii) Thirdly,   Shri   Navare   argued   that   the   decision   of   PMC
five­Member Committee, which unequivocally held that
the   date   of   joining   the   PMC   would   be   the   conclusive
determinant for the purpose of  inter­se  seniority, was a
quasi­judicial order which Respondent Nos. 5 to 79 did
1
  (2003) 4 SCC 695
Page| 9

not   assail   before   any   forum.   Their   acquiescence   and
long silence on the matter estop them from questioning
the   subsequently   published   final   seniority   list   which
was   a   step   taken   to   comply   with   the   decision   of   the
Five Member Committee. 
12. Learned   counsel   for   Respondent   No.   1,   the   PMC,   also
supported the cause of the Appellant and urged that in the event
of granting the benefit of past service to Respondent Nos. 5 to 79,
a   cascading   domino   effect   will   be   triggered   which   will   lead   to
other   employees   of   different   departments   who   have   been
absorbed   into   PMC   raising   similar   claims,   thus,   spawning   an
unending seniority dispute between different cadres.
13. On   the   other   hand,   Mr.   Abhay   Anil   Anturkar,   learned
counsel   for   Respondent   Nos.   5   to   79   strenuously   opposed   the
Appellant’s claim and urged that:
(i) First proviso to Clause 5(c) of Appendix IV, which is to
be   read   into   Section   493   of   MMC   Act,   categorically
provides   that   the   service   rendered   by   Officers   and
Servants   before   their   date   of   appointment   shall   be
deemed   to   be   service   rendered   in   the   service   of   the
Page| 10

Municipal   Corporation   itself.   In   view   of   this   statutory
mandate,   the   High   Court   has   rightly   held   that
Respondent   Nos.   5   to   79   are   entitled   to   assign   the
seniority from the date they were appointed in ZP.
(ii) The   Government   Resolution   dated   13.08.1990,   in   no
uncertain terms, provides that on inclusion of the area
of a ZP within the limits of Municipal Corporation, the
transferred employees shall be entitled to the benefit of
their past service towards fixation of pay, seniority and
retiral   benefits   etc.   This   Resolution   falls   within   the
ambit of Article 162 of the Constitution, and is binding
on   all   inferior   authorities   including   the   PMC.   Since
Respondent   Nos.   5   to   79   were   appointed   in   the   ZP,
their  previous  service  cannot  be  ignored.  He  forcefully
denied the Appellant’s contention that it was a case of
`voluntary   transfer’   and   maintained   that   private
respondents had no choice but to give their consent for
absorption   in  PMC  as  all  the  schools  where they  were
working   had   been   transferred   to   within   the   municipal
limits.
Page| 11

(iii)     The Appellants have mis­quoted the contents of letter
dated 11.10.1999. The true extracts of the letter are as
follows:
“xxx  xxx  xxx
4. Also,   it   is   hereby   ordered   to   absorb   only
those   primary   teachers   who   have   consented   for
being   transferred   to   the   Pune   Municipal
Corporation   and   it   is   hereby   requested   to
accommodate   said   primary   teachers   with
Municipal Corporation.
xxx  xxx  xxx”
(iv) Neither   the   Appellant   nor   the   PMC       invoked   Section
3(3)(b)   of   MMC   Act   before   the   High   Court   and   their
reliance   upon   this   provision   has   been   made   for   the
first time before this Court only.
(v)  With regard to the claim raised by Appellant regarding
acquiescence and  estoppel, learned counsel  countered
by   arguing   that   Respondent   Nos.   5   to   79   were   not
obliged   to   challenge   recommendations   of   PMC
Committee   specifically,   given   that   they   consequently
objected to the culmination of those recommendations
into   the   final   seniority   list   dated   20 th
  February,   2018,
without any delay.
Page| 12

ANALYSIS :
14. We have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of
the parties and have minutely examined the statutory provisions
relied   upon   by   both   the   sides.   In   our   considered   view,   the
following   two   questions   need   to   be   determined   to   resolve   the
controversy:
(I) Whether   the   inter   se   seniority   of   the   primary   teachers
who   were   appointed   in   the   ZP   and   were   later   on   absorbed
into   PMC,   vis­à­vis   those   primary   teachers   who   directly
joined PMC, is to be determined in accordance with Section
3(3)(b) of the MMC Act?; 
(II) Alternatively,   should   such   inter   se   seniority   be
determined   in   accordance   with   Section   493   read   with
Clause 5I of Appendix IV of the MMC Act?
Question No. I:
15. On a cursory look of the legislative scheme behind the MMC
Act,   it   is   evident   that   Section   3   falls   in   Chapter   1,   which   is
captioned   as   ‘PRIMARY’.   Since,   the   MMC   Act   was   enacted   in
1949, it has been suitably amended from time to time, especially
Page| 13

after the insertion of Part IX­A ‘Municipalities’ in our Constitution
with effect from 01.06.1993.   Article 243Q(1)   mandates that,   in
every   State,   the   following   would   be   constituted:   (a)   A   nagar
panchayat,   for a transitional area, namely, an area in transition
from   rural   to   urban   area;   (b)   a   municipal   council   for   a   smaller
urban   area;   and   (c)   a   municipal   corporation   for   a   larger   urban
area. The obligation was placed on every State under sub­Article
(2)   of   Article   243Q   to   define   ‘transitional   area’,   ‘a   smaller   urban
area’   or   ‘a   larger   urban   area’.   It   is   in   discharge   of   this
Constitutional   obligation   that   the   State   of   Maharashtra   also
amended the MMC Act thereby providing under Section 3(1) that
a `larger urban area’ shall be specified by way of a Notification to
be issued under Article 243Q(2) of the Constitution, and such an
area   shall   be   deemed   to   be   a   duly   constituted   Municipal
Corporation.   Sub­Section   (3)   further   provides   that   the   State
Government,   in   consultation   with   the   Corporation,   may   include
or   exclude   an   area   from   within   the   limits   of   the   Municipal
Corporation. It is in this context that Clause (b) of sub­section (3)
provides   that   when   an   area   is   included   within   the   limits   of   the
`larger   urban   area’,   any   appointments,   notifications,   notices,
taxes,   orders,   schemes,   licenses,   permissions,   rules,   by­laws
Page| 14

issued, imposed or granted, under the MMC Act or any other law
which is for the time being in force in the larger urban area shall,
notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   any   other   law,   apply   to
and be in force in the additional area, from the date that area in
question   is   included   in   the   city.   To   simplify,   Clause   (b)   merely
states that whatever appointments, notifications, notices, rules or
by­laws etc. are already in force in the existing ‘larger urban area’
will   mutatis   mutandis   come   into   force   in   the   “additional   area”
which   is   included   by   issuing   a   notification   under   Clause   (a)   of
Section 3(3) of the MMC Act. 
16. The purpose of Clause (b) is to ensure that any statutory or
administrative   decision   which   has   already   been   enforced   by   a
Municipal Corporation in its existing larger urban area shall stay
in   force   and   will   become   applicable   automatically   in   the   newly
added   area   also.   The   expression   ‘appointments’   has   to   be
understood in this context only. 
17. The scope of Clause (b) as a provision is meant to facilitate
the inclusion of newly added additional areas and to ensure that
such   areas   do   not   remain   in   a   vacuum   for   want   of   statutory   or
administrative   decisions   following   the   cessation   of   its   status   as
Page| 15

part  of  the  ZP.  Clause  (b) of  Section  (3)(3)  is  not  concerned  with
the protection of conditions of service of the employees of the ZP
who   are   absorbed   into   a   Municipal   Corporation.   When   the
Legislature   never   intended   to   regulate   terms   and   conditions   of
the employees who are merged in a Municipal Corporation due to
expansion of `larger urban area’, no inference in relation thereto
can   be   drawn   from   the   plain   wording   of   Section   3(3)(b)   of   the
MMC   Act.   The   reliance   placed   by   the   Appellants   on   the   said
provision   is,   thus,   completely   misplaced   and   is   liable   to   be
rejected.
Question No. II:
18.  Section 493 of the MMC Act reads as follows: ­
“ 493.   Transitory   provisions.­   The   provisions   of
Appendix   IV   shall   apply   to   the   constitution   of   the
Corporation and other matters specified therein.”
It   may   be   seen   that   the   provisions   of   Appendix   (IV)   shall
apply   to   the   constitution   of   the   Corporation   and   other   matters
specified   therein.   Clause   (1)   of   Appendix   (IV)   pertains   to
‘construction of reference in other enactments’ whereas Clause 2
provides   that   all   rights   of   the   municipality   or   any   other   local
authority   shall,   on   the   date   in   question,   vest   in   the   Corporation
Page| 16

constituted for the said area. Clauses (3) and (4) deal with ‘sums
due’ and ‘debts, obligations, contracts and pending proceedings’,
respectively.  
19. Clause (5) thereafter reads as follows:­
“ APPENDIX IV
TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
1. Construction of references in other enactments. ….
2. Transfer of rights.­ …
3. Sums due. ­ ….
4. Debts, obligations, contracts and pending 
proceedings. ­ ….
5. Continuation of appointments, taxes, budget 
estimates, assessments, etc. –  Save as expressly 
provided by the provisions of this Appendix or by a 
notification issued under paragraph 22 or order made 
under paragraph 23, ­
(a) any   appointment,   notification,   notice,   tax,   order,
scheme, licence, permission, rule, bye­law or form made,
issued, imposed or granted under (the area constituted to
be a City immediately, before the appointed day shall, in
so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this
Act,   continue   in   force   until   it   is   superseded   by   any
appointment,   notification,   notice,   tax,   order,   scheme,
licence,  permission, rule,  bye­law,  or  form   made,  issued,
imposed   or   granted   under   this   Act   or   any   other   law   as
aforesaid, as the case may be;
(b) all   budget   estimates,   assessments,   valuations,
measurements,   and   divisions   made   under   (the
Maharashtra   Municipalities   Act,   1965)   or   any   other   law
in force in any area constituted to be a City immediately
before   the   appointed   day   shall   in   so   far   as   they   are
consistent   with   the   provisions   of   this   Act,   be   deemed   to
have been made under this Act;
(c) all   officers   and   servants   in   the   employ   of   the   said
municipality   or   local   authority   immediately   before   the
Page| 17

appointed day shall be officers and servants employed by
the   Corporation   under   this   Act   and   shall,   until   other
provision   is   made   in   accordance   with   the   provisions   of
this   Act,   receive   salaries   and   allowances   and   be   subject
to the conditions of service to which they were entitled to
subject on such date:
Provided   that   service   rendered   by   such   officers   and
servants before the appointed day shall be deemed to
be service rendered in the service of the Corporation:
Provided   further   that   it   shall   be   competent   to   the
Corporation   to   discontinue   the   services   of   any   officer   or
servant   who,   in   its   opinion,   is   not   necessary   or   suitable
to the requirements of the municipal service, after giving
such   officer   or   servant,   such   notice   as   is   required   to   be
given by the terms of his employment and every officer or
servant   whose   services   are   so   discontinued,   shall   be
entitled   to   such   leave,   pension   or   gratuity   as   he   would
have   been   entitled   to   take   or   receive   on   being   invalided
out of service if this Act had not been passed.”  
[Emphasis applied]  
20. Clause   5,   thus,   deals   with   ‘continuation   of   appointments’,
taxes, budget estimates, assessments etc.’ and its Sub­Clause (C)
specifically   says   that   all   officers   and   servants   under   the
employment     of   a   municipality   or   local   authority   immediately
before the appointed day shall be officers and servants employed
by   the   Corporation   under   this   Act   and   shall,   subject   to   other
provisions   made   in   accordance   with   the   provisions   of   this   Act,
receive salaries and  allowances and  be  subject  to  the conditions
of   service   which   were   operative   on   such   date.   The   first   proviso
provides,   crucially,   that   service   rendered   by   such   officers   and
Page| 18

servants   before   the   appointment   date   shall   be   deemed   to   be
service rendered in the service of the Corporation itself. 
21. There   is   no   dispute   regarding   the   fact   that   Clause   5(c),
including its first proviso, occupies this field of law till date. The
provision   explicitly   deals   with   protection   of   conditions   of   service
of the officers and servants who were earlier employed in a local
authority   like   a   ZP,   and   who   have   been   subsequently   absorbed
into   a   Municipal   Corporation.   It   expressly   protects   their   service
rendered by them in the local authority before the appointed day
and   further   provides   that   it   shall   be   considered   as   service
rendered in the Municipal Corporation itself. Given the existence
of this unambiguous provision, the only logical conclusion is that
the service rendered by Respondent Nos. 5 to 79 in the ZP has to
be   treated   as   service   rendered   in   the   PMC.   Such   service,
therefore,   has   to   be   counted   towards   the   determination   of   their
seniority   as   well.   There   is   no   infirmity   in   the   view   taken   by   the
High Court in this regard.
22. Additionally,   Clause   (5)   of   Appendix   IV   starts   with   the
expression   ‘continuation’   of   appointments.   The   word
‘continuation’   connotes   ‘without   interruption’.   It   is   an   unbroken
Page| 19

and consistent state of affairs or operation of something. In other
words, the service rendered by Respondent Nos. 5 to 79 in the ZP
is consistent and unbroken and it remains in existence even after
their   absorption   into   the   PMC   as   a   result   of   the   statutory
protection embodied under Clause (5) of Appendix (IV) read with
Section 493 of the MMC Act.
23. The   appellant’s   attempt   to   invoke   estoppel   against
Respondent  Nos. 5 to  79 for  their   failure  to challenge the  report
of  the  PMC  Committee does not assist its case. Firstly, the PMC
Committee   was   not   competent   to   make   any   administrative
recommendation   dehors   the   Government   Resolution   dated
13.08.1990.   Secondly,   the   cause   of   action   to   launch   the
challenge arose in the first place only when final seniority list was
issued on 20.02.2018. Soon thereafter, Respondent Nos. 5 to 79
approached   the   High   Court,   thus,   dispelling   any   notion   of   them
having   slept   on   their   rights.   They   cannot   be   said   to   have
acquiesced   to   the   adverse   decision   taken   against   them   and
neither   there   is   any   delay   or   latches   on   their   part.   Appellant’s
objection on this ground is untenable and must be rejected. 
Page| 20

CONCLUSION:
24. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in
this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.
25. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
………………….………..J.
(SURYA KANT)
………………….………..J.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 17, 2023.
Page| 21