ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel, assisted by Himanshu Shekhar Awasthi, Standing Counsel for the respondent State.
(2.) This petition is directed against an order dated 22.5.2017, whereby petitioner's claim for grant of compassionate appointment on account of death of her mother, who was employed in the District Rural Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as 'DRDA') a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, has been rejected on the ground that provisions of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to "1974 Rules") are not attracted.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a division bench decision of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 687 of 2010 (State of U.P. and others v. Pitamber) decided on 19.8.2010 , wherein this Court has been pleased to hold in para 11 of the judgment that DRDA is a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Para 11 of the judgment is reproduced:- "11. There is no dispute that the DRDAs are registered as Societies under the Societies Registration Act. DRDAs are registered for each District. The Bye-laws provide for a Governing Body. The powers of the Governing Body has been set out under Bye-law 19 of the Bye-laws. Bye-law 20 provides for other powers conferred on the Governing Body. Bye-law 35 provides the manner in which the Society can sue or be sued. The Memorandum of Association of DRDA provides for Working Committee of the Governing Body, which consists of officers, who hold office in the Working Committee, by virtue of their posts in Government service. The members of the Society hold the post of Chairman or Members or the Executive Director by virtue of the posts they hold in Government service. By virtue of these Bye-laws, the Governing Body can appoint staff subject to the directions issued by the Central Government/State Government. The State Government issued Notification dated 17th March, 1994 which provided for the conditions of service of the employees in respect of employees of DRDA. Once the State Government has issued directions in exercise of its power, the Governing Body is bound by the said directions in the matter of appointment of staff. The power to appoint also includes the power to terminate and/or superannuate. The subsequent direction of 09.03.2004 has also been issued by the State Government and would be relatable with the power that it has, under Bye-law 20 (h) of the Bye-laws. Considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in Badloo Ram (supra) and the findings recorded by the Division Bench, to which the learned Judge who decided Badloo Ram (supra) was a Member, being Writ Petition No. 458 (SB) of 2000, Anoop Rai Jain and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., decided on 24th December, 2009 , there can be no dispute that the Society is an instrumentality of the State and, therefore, falling under the expression 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, but its employees cannot be said to be employees of the State in view of the Bye-laws including Bye-law 20 (h). The learned Judge in Kalika Prasad (supra), has not discussed the reason as to why F.R. 56 is applicable. If F.R. 56 was applicable because of Guideline No. 2 (10) of Government Notification dated 17th March, 1994, then it was within the competence of the State Government to also have issued the Government Order dated 09.03.2004. In these circumstances, considering the Government Notification dated 09.03.2004, the age of superannuation of employees of DRDA would be 58 years from that date. Question (1) is answered in the affirmative.";