( 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.

( 4 ) ON the pleadings of the parties the trial court struck the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff held the substantive post of a trust inspector as alleged by him? If so, its effect? 2. Whether the dismissal of the plaintiff from the service is invalid, illegal and inoperative as alleged in paragraph 8 of the plaint? 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable under Section 96 of the U. P. Town Improvement Act as alleged in paragraph 14 of the written statement? 4. To what relief and damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

( 5 ) WHETHER the defendant is entitled to special costs from the plaintiff under Section 35a of the code of Civil Procedure?

( 6 ) WHETHER the suit is barred by Section 97 of the U. P. Town Improvement Act?

5. The trial court held on the first issue that the plaintiff substantive post was that of a building supervisor and that he was appointed: temporarily to the post of the "trust inspector". The trial court further held under this issue that the Chairman of the Improvement Trust was the proper authority who could take action even to the extent of dismissal against the plaintiff. On the second issue, viz. , whether the dismissal of the plaintiff was illegal, the trial court came to the conclusion that since the Chairman did not serve the plaintiff with the charges in writing and further since he did not call upon the plaintiff to show cause against the proposed punishment, the action of the Chairman in dismissing the plaintiff was wrongful and ineffective. The trial court came to the aforementioned conclusion mainly on the ground that the plaintiffs conditions of service were governed by the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) rules and that his