Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Rural Development in Integrated Rural Development Agency vs Ram Pyare Pandey on 24 February, 1995Matching Fragments
PARIPOORNAN, J.:
1. Special leave granted.
2. The defendant in O.S. No. 1204 of 1981, in Munsiff Court No. 3, Deoria, is the appellant. The plaintiff in the suit is the respondent. The appellant - Integrated Rural Development Agency - is a body registered under the Societies Registration Act. It has its own Articles of Association. The respondent-plaintiff was appointed as Junior Clerk in the Integrated Rural Development Agency on 14.5.1980 against a permanent vacancy. His service was terminated on 6.6.1980. Thereupon, the respondent filed a suit and prayed for the grant of a declaration that the termination order was illegal and void and it was passed in violation of the rules governing the appellant. The learned Munsiff held that the appointment of the respondent was temporary and the termination order was not illegal or void and dismissed the suit. The respondent-plaintiff filed an appeal before the VI Additional District Judge, Deoria -- Civil Appeal No. 186 of the 1982. By judgment dated 29.4.1983 the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent plaintiff filed Second Appeal No. 2163 of 1983 in the High Court of Allahabad. Katju, J., by Judgment dated 22.3.1993, held that the termination of the service of the respondent was against the mandate of Rule 13(b) and so the termination order dated 6.6.1980 was illegal. The concurrent judgments of the courts below were reserved and the learned Judge fur-
ther directed that the appellant will be reinstated in service and also will be entitle to arrears of salary from the date of term nation. Aggreived by the aforesaid judg- ment of the learned Single Judge the Intergrated Rural Development Agency defendant in the suit -- has filed this appeal by special leave.
3. We heard Mr. A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.A Gilani, learned counsel for the respondent
4. The order of appointment of the respondent is quoted at page 21 of the paper book, which is as under :-
5. The appellant - Integrated Rural Development Agency - is one registered under Societies Registration Act. It has its own Articles of Association. It has framed its own rules thereunder. There is no plea or material or proof that the appellant - Integrated Rural Development Agency - is one constituted under statute or is owned or controlled by the State Government or an instrumentality of the State. The relationship between the appellant - Integrated Rural Development Agency - and the respondent is based on contract and is purely one of master and servant. As stated by Jenkins, L.J., in his dissenting judgment, in Vine vs. National Dock Labour Board (1956 (1) AER 1), which was approved in appeal by the House of Lords in 1956 (3) AER 939: