JUDGMENT

PARIPOORNAN, J.—Special leave granted.

2. The defendant in OS 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 VIth Additional District Judge, Deoria. Civil Appeal No. 186 of 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 reversed and the learned Judge further directed that the appellant will be reinstated in service and also will be entitled to arrears of salary from the date of termination. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Integrated 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:

"S/Shri Mohan Prasad and Gorakh Nath on being promoted to the posts of Stenographer and Accountant respectively, the following employees who are working as work-charged employees for the last four months are hereby appointed as clerks in the pay scale of Rs 200-320 with effect from 14-5-1980. They shall be entitled to receive Dearness Allowance and other allowances as approved by the Government. Their appointment is temporary and their services can be terminated at any time.

1. Shri Ram Pyare Pandey s/o Late Kushahar Pandey, r/o Village Pipraich, P.O. Deoria.

2. Shri Krishan Kumar Shukla, s/o Shri Ram Subhag Shukla, r/o Sindhi Mill Colony, Deoria.

sd/-

District Development Officer/

     Project Officer, Deoria."

(Shri Ram Pyare Pandey is the respondent herein.)

5. In exercise of the powers vested under Section 20(a) of the Articles of Association, the governing body of the appellant had framed its own rules regarding the conduct of business and office procedure. Rule 13 of the said rules is to the following effect:

"13. Period of the office of the Employees.- The period of office of an employee of the Agency shall not be determined until:

(a) His resignation has been accepted in writing by the authority competent to his successor, or

(b) The services of the employee can be terminated with one months notice from either side." (emphasis supplied)

(c) Katju, J. after having held that notwithstanding the terms of appointment order to the effect that the services of the respondent can be terminated at any time, Rule 13(b), quoted above, requires one months notice to be given before termination and that the rule should prevail, which renders the termination order dated 6-6-1980 illegal and void. In consequence, the learned Judge directed reinstatement of the respondent in service with arrears of salary. We are of the view that the respondent is not entitled to either reinstatement or arrears of salary from the date of termination. The learned Single Judge was wholly in error in affording the relief of reinstatement and back wage