Devendra Kumar Arora, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for parties.
(2.) BY means of present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 11.04.2008 passed by the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Sitapur thereby retiring the petitioner from service on 31.07.2008 at the age of 58 years, instead of retiring him at the age of 60 years. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus thereby commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue to work and discharge his duties on Class -IV post and pay him salary and other allowances each and every month till he attains the age of 60 years. Learned Standing Counsel while opposing the writ petition submitted that the controversy has already been settled by this Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Pitambar reported in [(2010) 4 UPLBEC 2958], in which it has been held that the District Rural Development Agency is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and its employees are employees of the Society and are not holding civil posts in the service of State and, as such Rule 56 of Fundamental Rule would not apply to them. The relevant paragraphs 16 and 17 of the aforesaid case read as under: 16. Considering the above referred judgments and the material on record, it will be clear that firstly the DRDA is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Its funding is 70 percent from the Central Government and 30 percent from the State Government. The members of the Society and also the Working Committee are basically persons holding the posts in government service, mostly in the State Government and some in the Central Government, as the object is of rural development. Bye -law 20 (h) recognizes that the staff are to be appointed by the Governing Body. The accounts are to be approved by the Governing Body in its annual general meeting. Suits are to be filed against the Society. Thus, though there may be funding by the Central/State Governments and control by the State Government, nonetheless they are employees of the Society. Some posts are filled up on transfer by the Governor and in respect of others, appointments are to be made by the Chief Executive Officer, who is the District Magistrate. Considering the tests laid down in Kanik Chandra Dutta (supra), we are clearly of the opinion that the tests laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court are not satisfied. Once it is held that they are the employees of DRDA and are not holding civil posts in the service of State, Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rule would not apply to them. 17. In the light of that, we are clearly of the opinion that the appeal filed by the State will have to be allowed. The employees of DRDA after 09.03.2004 will have to retire at the age of 58 years. Consequently, we hold that the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of Kalika Prasad (supra) that Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules would apply so far as the employees of DRDA are concerned, does not lay down the correct law and, hence, we overrule the judgment in Kalika Prasad (supra) and all other judgments, which have taken a similar view.
(3.) ON due consideration, this Court finds that since controversy has been settled by this Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Pitambar, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.;