018-NLR-NLR-V-37-SARAVANAMUTTU-v.-SITTAMPALAM.pdf
98
AKBAR J.—Saravanamuttu v. Sittampalam.
1934Present: Garvin S.P.J. and Akbar J.
SARAVANAMUTTU v. SITTAMPALAM.
220—D. C. Anuradhapura, 1,830.
Public servant—Pay-agent of Medical Department—Liability on a note—Public Servants’ (Liability) Ordinance, No. 2 of 1899A pay-agent employed in the service of the Medical Departmentis a public servant within the meaning of section 2 of the Public Servants’(Liabilities) Ordinance.
^^PPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Anuradhapura.
Nadarajah, for substituted plaintiff, appellant.
H. V. Perera (with him Thiagarajah), for defendant, respondent.
.Cur. adv. vult.
July 19, 1934. Akbar J.—
The only question to be decided in this appeal is whether the DistrictJudge was right in upholding the plea of the defendant that he is a publicservant and that he is therefore not liable to be sued on the promissorynote on which the plaintiff sues.
1 13 Ceylon Law Recorder 133.
In re A. V. de Silva, Advocate.
09
The defendant is a Registrar of Marriages and also a Pay-agent ofthe Medical Department. It is unnecessary for me to consider the officeof Registrar of Marriages which the defendant holds, for the purposesof this appeal, for I have come to the conclusion that the judgmentwas right when one considers the second office which the defendant holds.The defendant gave evidence and produced his letter of appointmentD 2 dated July 9, 1917, under which he was appointed an itineratingpay-agent for the North-Central Province with the sanction of Govern-ment. His duty was to receive from Rs. 1,500 to Rs. 2,000 every monthfrom the Head of the Medical Department and distribute it among theapothecaries, vaccinators, and minor employees of the Medical Depart-ment in the North-Central Province. He had to give security and wasentitled to the other privileges and disadvantages of public servants,namely, the 10 per cent, levy, holiday warrants, and leave regulations.He drew his salary every month on furnishing the ordinary pay abstracts.It is urged for the appellant that inasmuch as the defendant was allowedby the Government to carry on his own private business as a generalmerchant, auctioneer, broker, and dealer in petrol he was not a publicservant within the meaning of Ordinance No. 2 of 1899. Section 2 ofthat Ordinance defines a “ public servant ” as a person employed in theservice of the Government of the Colony. In my opinion the defendantwas a person who was employed in the service of the Medical Departmentwhich is under the Government of the Colony. The fact that he wasallowed to carry on his own private business at the same time was simplyan incident in the terms of his contract of service under the Government.In section 3 (2) there is a reference to a fixed appointment. In the casenow before me the defendant has been employed as a pay-agentcontinuously from July 9, 1917. Mr. Justice de Sampayo applied asimilar test in the case of Saibo v. Punchirala1 and came to the conclusionthat the Ordinance provided protection even to public servants whowere in the service of the Government and who may not receive anyremuneration at all.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Garvin S.P.J.—I agree.
Appeal dismissed.