JUDGMENT 1. - This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for declaration by a Civil Servant, which has been decreed by both the lower courts. It has been declared that the order dated 21-10-63 of the Director of Local Bodies, Jaipur terminating the services of the appellant was illegal, void and ineffective, and that he ,continued to be in service till the age of superannuation. 2. The plaintiff in his suit had prayed for declaration and also claimed a -sum of Rs. 5311 /- being the arrears of his pay and allowances. The lower Court, however, did not pass decree for the arrears of salary and allowances, but passed a declaratory decree. The plaintiff's case was that he was appointed in 1950 by the State Government as the Secretary to the Municipal Board, Bhawani-Mandi. In 1962 he was Secretary of the Municipal Board, Deeg. The Administrator of the Municipal Board was not happy with him because of his involvement in the local politics. The Administrator started taking work from the Sanitary Inspector and stopped paying high salary from 16-7-1962. After some time he was transferred from Deeg to the Municipal Board, Bari. He was relieved from Deeg on 23-10-1962. He did not move out and demanded payment of his salary and delivery of L.P.C.. Owing to non- compliance with this order of transfer, he was suspended on 12-1-1963 under an order passed by the Deputy Secretary, Local-Self Department, Jaipur. Neither any charge-sheet was served upon him nor any disciplinary proceedings were taken against him. He was, however, reinstated on 4-7-1963 and was transferred to Jaisalmer. He wrote a letter to the Chairman, Municipal Board, Jaisainter informing him that he was going to join his post shortly. In reply, he received a letter from the Chairman that he should join duties only after obtaining fresh orders from the Government. At this, he wrote to the Director, Local Bodies, Rajasthan, on 9-11-1963 for necessary orders. The Director did not pay heed to the matter and sent him a notice terminating his services with effect from 21-10-1963. Aggrieved by this arbitrary action on the part of the Director, the plaintiff after serving notice under Section 80, C P.C., filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Bharatpur for declaration that the order of termination of services was totally illegal, ultravirus and inoperative. The, reasons were:- 1. Aggrieved by this arbitrary action on the part of the Director, the plaintiff after serving notice under Section 80, C P.C., filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Bharatpur for declaration that the order of termination of services was totally illegal, ultravirus and inoperative. The, reasons were:- 1. That he was appointed by the State Government and the Director had no authority to terminate his services. 2. Neither he was served with a charge-sheet nor any show cause notice and there was violation of principles of natural justice in this arbitrary action. 3. Necessary legal formalities were not complied with in terminating his. services. 3. At that time he was getting salary of Rs. 170/- including Dearness Allowance. He, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 5311/- on account of arrears of his emoluments from 24-10-1962 to 25-5-1965. 4. The defendant in his written statement admitted most of the facts narrated in the plaint, but averred that the Director of Local Bodies had been vested with powers to terminate the services of Secretary and as such the- impugned order was valid. It was also averred that necessary legal formalities had been observed in dispensing with the services of the plaintiff. It was pointed out that as the plaintiff intentionally refrained from joining his duties at Jaisalmer, he was not entitled to claim any salary from 24-10-1962. The following objections were raised:- 1. The plaintiff has no cause of action against the State Government, as he was not a Government employee, but was a Municipal employee. 2. As the Municipal Board, Deeg had not been impleaded in the suit, the plaintiff's suit suffered from non-joinder of necessary party. 3. As the plaintiff failed to comply with the orders of transfer to Jaisalmer, his services were rightly terminated and as such he was not entitled to any such relief. From the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff was initially appointed as Secretary, Municipal Board, Bhawani Mandi, by the defendant? 2. Whether the orders of the termination of the service of the plaintiff are illegal, ultravirus and inoperative as against the plaintiff for the reasons stated in para No. 12 of the plaint? 3. Whether a valid notice under section 80, C.P.C. has been served upon the defendant prior to the institution of the suit? 4. 2. Whether the orders of the termination of the service of the plaintiff are illegal, ultravirus and inoperative as against the plaintiff for the reasons stated in para No. 12 of the plaint? 3. Whether a valid notice under section 80, C.P.C. has been served upon the defendant prior to the institution of the suit? 4. Whether the Municipal Board, Deeg, is a necessary party to the suit? 5. Whether the plaintiff is an employee of the Municipal Board, and as such he is not entitled to got any relief against the defendant? 6. Whether the present suit for mere arrears of salary is not maintainable? 7. To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled ? 5. After allowing opportunity to both the parties to lead their evidence in the case and after hearing them, the learned Civil Judge decided the issues in favour of the plaintiff and passed a declaratory decree. He, however, did not consider it appropriate to pass any decree for arrears of salary. It may be due to the fact that the plaintiff had admitted as PW 1 that he had been paid his salary upto 6-3-1964. 6. The defendant filed an appeal and the first appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. 7. The same points have been agitated by Mr. Bhandari before this Court in this second appeal. He submitted that the order of termination was passed by the Director of Local Bodies, and, therefore, the decree should not have been passed against the State Government. 8. I have considered the submission of Mr. Bhandari. As rightly pointed out by the first Appellate Court the State Government is invested with the powers of appointing Executive Officer for a Board and, a Secretary for every Council under Section 307 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. While exercising powers under section 299, the State Government delegated the powers of making appointment and transfer of the Executive Officers and Secretaries of the Municipal Board to the Director of Local Bodies, under its notification dated 7-6-60. The Director of Local Bodies was, therefore, competent to terminate the services of the plaintiff and as such the order would be deemed to be an order passed by the State Government. In view of this, the order of the Director for all intents and purposes would be deemed to be the order of the State Government. 9. The Director of Local Bodies was, therefore, competent to terminate the services of the plaintiff and as such the order would be deemed to be an order passed by the State Government. In view of this, the order of the Director for all intents and purposes would be deemed to be the order of the State Government. 9. The first appellate Court rightly pointed out that in (1) Raghunath Rai V. The State of Rajasthan 1957 RLW 500 , it has been held that an officer to whom the powers had been delegated has all the powers of the Government and must be treated for all practical purposes as the Government. I am, therefore, of the view that the submission of Mr. Bhandari cannot succeed. No other point was pressed before this court. 10. The result is that this appeal fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs. 11. Before parting with this case, I must take notice of a letter received by the office in 1973, in which the respondent has mentioned that he has lost his eye sight and is too poor to appear and argue the case or engage a lawyer. In such cases, it is the duty of the Office of the High Court to send such letters to the Committee, which has been constituted for providing free legal aid to poor. It must be mentioned that the requirement of providing free legal aid to poor litigants has now assumed a constitutional status after the same has been incorporated in the directive principles of the State policy. The office should, before, be more careful in future, and whenever such letters or applications are received from the litigants, it should place the same before the Registrar or the Court by listing it specially for the purpose, so that proper arrangements for providing legal assistance to such poor litigants may be made. 12. In the letter, the respondent has also mentioned that his gratuity amount has not been paid so far. Although, while sitting in Civil Second Appeal, it is not possible to issue any such directions, but since the Government is the appellant, it is desired that appropriate enquiry may be made immediately within a period of two months from today to ascertain whether the dues of the plaintiff-respondent including the gratuity etc., have been paid or not. Although, while sitting in Civil Second Appeal, it is not possible to issue any such directions, but since the Government is the appellant, it is desired that appropriate enquiry may be made immediately within a period of two months from today to ascertain whether the dues of the plaintiff-respondent including the gratuity etc., have been paid or not. The learned Deputy Government Advocate, who is present in the Court in this case, should immediately take steps for obtaining information and report its compliance. 13. A copy of the judgment may be sent to the Chief Secretary, so that necessary action for payment of gratuity and other dues of the plaintiff respondent, who has been handicapped on account of less of eye sight during this litigation can be paid immediately. On expiry of two months from the receipt of the copy of the judgment, the Chief Secretary should send information to this Court of the compliance of the desire expressed by this Court in this judgment. 14. I am constrained to observe that there is no arrangement in the Registry of the High Court for taking notice of such applications and prayers of poor litigants for providing free legal aid and legal assistance. It's a sad commentary on the functioning of our Constitution containing directive principles for providing legal aid to the poor and needy that an application made in the year 1973 by the respondents mentioning that he has lost his eye sight and cannot afford to come and argue his case personally or engage a lawyer, was allowed to remain in debris of the papers and no one had any time to read and look into it far from taking steps to provide legal aid or legal assistance. The Registry should now immediately set up a separate cell for taking notice of such applications and acting upon them by bringing it to the notice of the legal aid committee which is functioning for this purpose in this State. If there is any problem of any funds or administrative sanction for the staff, this file and the judgment should be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Administrative Judge for providing necessary staff. If there is any problem of any funds or administrative sanction for the staff, this file and the judgment should be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Administrative Judge for providing necessary staff. I am certain that the State Government which is committed to the Constitution and its directive principles including the requirement of providing legal aid to poor and needy, would not hesitate to issue financial sanction for the establishment of such a cell in the High Court registry. *******