INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY versus RAM PYARE PANDEY

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 321 · Decided: 24-02-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• ' ,- -
'I 
/ 
-( 
INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY 
\'. 
RAM PYARE PANDEY 
FEBRUARY 24, 1995 
[J.S. VERMA AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, J.J.) 
Se1vice Law-Contract of employme11t-Tenni11atio11 of se1vic~Relief 
of reinstatenzellt or backwages cannot be granted except in rare and exceptional 
cases-<:laim for damages-Maintainable . 
A 
B 
c 
The respondent-plaintiff was appointed as Junior Clerk in the In-
tegrated Rural Development Agency, a body registered under the Societies 
Registration Act, having its own Articles of Association. His service was 
terminated. He filed a suit and prayed for the grant of a declaration that 
the temination order was illegal and void and it was passed in violation of 
the rules governing the appellant. The suit was dismissed. The Court held D 
that the appointment of the respondent was temporary and the termina-
tion order was not illegal or void. Appeal filed against the order was 
dismissed. The plaintiff filed Second Appeal. The High Court quashed the 
order of termination while holding that the termination of the service of 
the respondent was against the mandate of Rule 13 (b) and so it was illegal. E 
The concurrent judgments of the courts below were reversed. The High 
Court directed reinstatement of the respondent in service with arrears of 
salary from the date of termination. This appeal had been filed against the 
judgment of the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
F 
HELD 1.1. The Intergrated Rural Development Agency is one 
registered under Societies Registration Act. It has its own Articles of 
Association. It has framed its own rules thereunder. The relationship 
between the Ag~ncy and the respondent was based on contract and was G 
purely one of master and servant. [324-F] 
1.2. In the ordinary case of master and servant, the repudiation or 
the wrongful dismissal puts an end to the contract, and a claim for 
damages arises. There cannot be specific performance of a contract of 
service. Such relief can be granted on sound legal principles only in rare H 
321 
322 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995) 2 S.C.R. 
A and exceptional cases. [324-H, 325-C] 
Vine v. National Dock Labour Board, (1956) 1 AER 1; Nandganj 
S.eh01i Sugar Co. Ltd. Rai Bareli and Anr. v. Bad1i Nath Dixit and Ors., 
q991] 3 SCC 54 and Ridge v. Baldwin, (1963) 2 AER 66 (HL), referred to. 
B 
13. In the instant case, the relief of reinstatement could not be 
granted. By affording the relief of reinstatment or backwages, the courts 
will, in fact, be granting specific performance of contracts of service, which 
can be done only in the exceptional or rare cases. (326-B] . 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3006 of 
1995. 
D 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.3.93 of the Allahabad High 
Court in S.A. No. 2163 of 1983. 
A.K. Srivastava for the Appellant. 
S.A. Gilani and P.K. Jain for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PARIPOORNAN, J. 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. 
F 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 respon-
G dent 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 Apeal No. 186of1982. By judg-
ment dated 29.4.1983 the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent 
plaintiff filed Second Appeal No. 2163 of 1983 in the High Court of 
H Allahabad. Katju, J., By Judgment dated 22.3.1993, held that the termina-
I 
-y-
INIEGRATEDRURALDEV.AGENCY v. RP.PANDEY[PARIPOORNAN,J.) 
323 
tion of the service of the respondent was against the mandate of Rule 13(b) A 
and so the termination order dated 6.6.1980 was illegal. The concurrent 
judgments of the courts below were reversed and the learned Judge further 
directed that the appellant will be reinstated in s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.