Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. Both appeals impugn the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2011 of the Court of Additional District Judge-07, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS No.118/2008 (ID No. 02401C5086002004) filed by the appellant in RFA No.371/2011 against the appellants in RFA No.269/2011. RFA No.269/2011 filed by the judgment debtors in the suit was admitted for hearing and vide order dated 12.05.2011 the operation of the impugned judgment and decree stayed. RFA No.371/2011 was also admitted for hearing on 25.07.2011. On application of the appellant in RFA No.371/2011 that he is a senior citizen, hearing was expedited by placing both the RFAs in the category of Regular Matters of Senior Citizens.

2. The counsel for the appellants in RFA No.269/2011 and the appellant in person in RFA No.371/2011 have been heard.

3. The suit from which the appeals arise was instituted on 15.03.2004 by the appellant in RFA No.371/2011 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) against the appellants in RFA No. 269/2011 State Farms Corporation of India Ltd. (SFCI) and Union of India (UOI) through the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture (hereinafter together referred to as the defendants) for recovery of a principal sum of Rs.10,06,784/-and interest at the rate of 12.5% till the date of institution of the suit of Rs.5,65,014/-i.e. for a total sum of Rs.15,71,798, pleading:

(i) that the plaintiff was employed as Professor, Soil Science as well as Controlling Officer of University Farms with the Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University from 12.06.1965 till 29.02.2000;

(ii) that a post of Managing Director of the defendant SFCI was advertised by Public Enterprise Selection Board (PESB) for which the plaintiff applied through proper channel;

(iii) that the plaintiff wasappointed as the Managing Director of the defendant SFCI by the President of India vide appointment letter dated 27.04.1995, as per Article 50 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of defendant SFCI;

(iv) that the date of superannuation of the plaintiff was defined as 29.02.2000 in the letter dated 28.08.1997 of the defendant UOI as well as in the letter dated 01.09.1997 issued by PESB;

(v) that the terms and conditions of service of the plaintiff during deputation as Managing Director of the defendant SFCI were contained in the Memorandum dated11.01.1996 and letter dated 23.01.1996 of the defendant UOI to the defendant SFCI;

(vi) that the service terms and conditions of the plaintiff were mandatory and the Board of the defendant SFCI could not interfere therewith;

(vii) that though the plaintiff was also a Director on the Board of defendant SFCI but was not governed by the Rules and Regulations of the defendant SFCI and was governed by All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 and All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 and the Board of Directors of the defendant SFCI had no power to take any action against the plaintiff or with respect to the service conditions of the plaintiff;

(viii) that the plaintiff joined the defendant SFCI as Managing Director on 01.05.1995;

(ix) that in the month of July, 1997, the defendant UOI proposed to repatriate the plaintiff prematurely without giving him any notice;

(x) that the plaintiff challenged the said decision before this Court by filing CWP No.3679/1997 and in which vide interim order dated 08.09.1997 status quo was directed to be maintained;

(xi) that notwithstanding the said interim order, the Board of Directors of the defendant SFCI vide decision taken in the meeting dated 30.09.1997 withdrew the powers of the plaintiff and stopped payment of his dues and allowances to which the plaintiff was entitled to as per his service conditions and which also was beyond the powers of the Board;

(xii) that contempt of court proceedings were instituted by the plaintiff in this Court and though during the pendency thereof the counsel for defendant No.2 SFCI stated that an amou