HK3H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritPeUtion No. 2571 of 2004 Petitioner Respondents Versus :1. 2. 3. Ghanaram Thvari S/o Laxmi Narayan Tiwari, Aged about 58 years, R/o Chainpura Road, P.0 & Tahsit Pandariya, Dist: Kabirdham (C.G.) SteiteofChhattisgarh Through the Collector,"Kabirdham, Dist: Kabirdham-(C.G.) The Chief Executive Wteer, Pandariya, Janpad PanchayatOfRce, Pandariya, Dist l^birdham-(C.G.) The President, Janpad Panchsyat Pandariya, Dist: Kabirdham-(C.G.) SB Hon'ble Shri Satlsh K. Aanihotri. J. Present Mr. Anoop Mazumdar, counsel fbr the p^itioner. Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the respondent No. 1/State. Mr. M.K. Bhaduri and Mr. P.K. Tulsiyan, Advocates for the respondent No. 2. None appears for respondent No. 3. ORDER (Passed on this 13 day of March, 2007) The petitioner was workfng as Accountant in Janpad Panchayat, fandariya, District Kabirdham since 1.8.68. The petitioner attained the age <rf superannuation on 31.12^003 after completion of 58 years of age. According to leamed counsel appearing tor the peBtioner, the petiUoner was granted one year extension of service vide resolirtion passed in the meeting of General Body of the Gram Panchayat, Pandariya in accordance with the Rule 33 © ofthe Madhya Pradesh ^(c^ Panchayat Service (Recruihnent and General Conditions <rf Servfces) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1999'). The sakl resolution was not gwen effect to by the Chief ExecuUve OfBcer vide order dated 31.12.2003 (P/2), whereunder the pe88oner was reUred with effectfrom 31.12.20030n attainingtheage<rf58years. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for ttie petiUoner subroits ttiat e Ghief Executive Offlcer- is bound to follow the resolution passed by the General Body ofthe Janpad Panchayat, 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that the Chief Executive Officer is not bound or under an obligation tofottaw the resolution passed by the General Body ofthe Janpad Panchayat, if it is not in accordance with the provistons of law. SecUon 33 (2) <rf the Rules, 1939 cleariy provides that th& adension of servtee can be granted in exceftfonal cases witfi the prior permission of the prescribed authority. In the present case, it does not aniear that with the prior permission by the prescribed authority, the General Body of the Janpad Pancha^t passed the resolution. Thi», the resolufion passed by the General Body of the Janpad F^inchayat, Pandariya itseff is unlawful and not liabte to be followed and complied wWi. 4. Mr. Sushil Dubey, leamed Govemment Advoeate appearing for the respondent No. 1 subrnits that the law for e>dwision of servtea is veiy clear. Rule 33 (2) of the Rules 1999 provides for extension ^ service in e)ffieptional cases with the prior permission of the prescribed authority. According to him, the prescribed authority is ChiefExeciiUve Officer and^the resoluUon passed by tte Generat Body of the Janpad Panchayat was not vwth the prior permission of the prescribed authority. Thus, the resolutton fe unlawrful. 5. I have heard l^imed counsel appearing for Uie parUes and perused the documents appended therrto. » ;^ t.ssB'a^ 8. The contenttoo <rf toamod coureel an»a»tng(w the p^Btoner desenres to the rejected on tti& simpte ground ttert the Genwat Body ofttteJanpadPanch^at,whitegrantingoneyear's®<ten5ion,hasnot obtained prior permission oftheprescribedauUiority. Leamed counsd appearing for the petiUoner is not in a pwiUon to subnrit asto ^io ts Uie prescribed authority. The prescribed atdherity defined in Rule 3 ® of the Rutes'1999. Rute 3 © <rf the Rutes 1999 provides ttat 'Prescribed OfRcer' means the ofRcer noffied by the State Govemment in accordance wth the provtsions of Sub-Secfen (1) of Section 70 read wtth dause (xxi) of Section 2 of the Madh^i Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhini^im, 1^3 (hefeinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam, 1993'). SecUon 70 of the Mhiniyara 1993 mentions the prescribed authorify and the prescribed authority is defined in Section 2 read wMi dause (xxi), fliat 'Prescribed Officer' means such authority to whom the State Govemment by noUficaUon, notifyduring discharge ofilsduties. The petittoner has not pointed out any provfsions. Rule 34 of the Rules, 1999 provides thatall the Panchayat amptoyees shall be uncter the administrative controt of the Panehayat, through its Chisf Executive OfRcer. It appears that the ChW Execirtiw OIBcer is ttie prescribed authority. Thus, the resoluUon dated 12.6.2003 passed by ttie General Body of the Janpad Panchsyat was without competence and without prior permission of the prescribed autfiority as provided in Rute 33 (2) ofthe Rules, 1999. As a result and for the reasons above statsd, this petltton is devoid of merit and it is accordingty dismissed. No order as to costs. i^i:31^ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge