MOHAMMAD AHMAD KIDWAI Vs. CHAIRMAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal was referred to a Full Bench by one of us because of a question of law of some importance arising in the case. One of the questions that arose for determination in the appeal was whether an employee of the Improvement Trust could claim to be a member of a Civil service or holding a civil post as contemplated by Section 240 of the erstwhile Government of India Act (26 Geo. 5).

(2.) In order to be able to realise the true scope of the question properly it is essential to state some of the facts giving rise to this appeal. The appeal was by the plaintiff who was an employee of the Improvement Trust, Luck-now. He occupied the permanent post of a building supervisor in the scale of Rs. 45-3-90 plus Rs. 3/- per mensem as cycle allowance. The plaintiff claimed that he had subsequently been promoted to the post of a trust inspector in the grade of Rs. 60-5-100 per mensem plus Rs. 35/- a month as conveyance allowance and Rs. 22/- a month as dearness allowance; further he was allowed Rs. 9/- per month as interim relief; in short he alleged that he was in receipt of a total sum of Rs. 1267- per mensem. The plaintiff was charged with having been guilty of dereliction of duty and other offences and consequently he was first suspended and subsequently on 22-1-1948, dismissed from service by an order of the Chairman of the Improvement Trust. The plaintiffs case was that his dismissal was wrongful and consequently he claimed a declaration to that effect and also claimed Rs. 500/-as damages and in the alternative a decree for Rs. 180/- representing three months' salary in, lieu of notice.

(3.) The suit was contested on behalf of the Improvement Trust, which was sued through its Chairman. The contention of the plaintiff that his dismissal was wrongful was challenged. It was stated that the plaintiff had been appointed by the Chairman and that the Chairman was as such competent to dismiss the plaintiff. It was further contended on behalf of the Improvement Trust that the suit was not maintainable by virtue of the provisions of Sections 96 and 97 (3) of the U. P. Town Improvement Act (Act VIH of 1919). In the written-statement allegations of incompetence and other serious allegations were also made against the plaintiff.