069-NLR-NLR-V-18-SAIBO-v.-PUNCHIRALA.pdf
( 249 )
Present: De Sampayo A.J.
SAIBO v. PUNCHERALA.17—0. R. Matale, 11,042.
Public Servants' Liabilities Ordinance, 1899— Araehchi and police
headman — Public sonant — No remuneration received by theofficer.
A person bolding the office of araehchi and police headman iaa pubiio servant within the meaning of the Public Servants’Liabilities Ordinance, 1899.
The protection provided by the Ordinance does not turn upon thefact of remuneration being received by the public servant.
fjp HE facia are set out in the judgment.
D. B. Jayatilleke, for plaintiff, appellant.—An arachcbi andpolice headman is not a public servant under the Public Servants’Liabilities Ordinance. He does not receive any salary from theGovernment. He has no fixed appointment. (Palaniappa Che tty v.Fernando.1) Sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Ordinance excludes. from the operation of the Ordinance a public servant “in receiptof a salary in regard to fixed appointment of more than Bs. 300 amonth. ’’ This dearly implies the receipt of a salary by a pubiioservant and his fixed appointment under the Government. The objectof the Ordinance is to prevent the salary of a public servantfrom being seized in execution.
Wadsworth, for defendant, respondent.—There is nothing in theOrdinance to show that a public servant should be in .the receiptof a salary. Section 2 of the Ordinance defines a “ public servant “
• .1 A. C. R. 37.
1915.
( 350 )
as a " parson employed in the service of the Government. " AnSai?>* t». arachchi and police headman is so employed by the Governmentjif ala Agent and is removable at his pleasure. He receives certain
emoluments, such as commissions in the amounts collected as polltax. His appointment is a fixed one. In Tempoe v. Muragasu1it was hejd that an irrigation headman was a public officer withinthe definition of section 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. The inten-tion of the Legislature was to protect the public, and not theindividual public servant. Narayanan Chetty v. Samara8inghe,3Nagamuttu v. Kathiramen8 Provision is made in the Civil ProcedureCode (section 218) preventing the salary of a public servant frombeing seized m execution.
Cur. adv. vult.
February 9, 1915. De Sampayo A.J.—
The plaintiff sues the defendant on a promissory note datedOctober 8, 1918. The defendant pleads that at the date of thenote he was, and still is, a public servant, and claims the exemptionprovided by the Public Servants’ Liabilities Ordinance, 1899.The Commissioner of Bequests has upheld this defence and dis-missed the action, and the plaintiff has appealed.
The defendant is arachchi and police headman of Embitiyawa,having been appointed as such by the Government Agent on July80, 1912. The question is whether he is a public servant withinthe meaning of the Ordinance, which defines the term to mean“ a person employed in the service of the Government of theColony. ’’ I think this definition is broad enough to include anarachchi. In Tampoe v. Murugesu1 it has been held that ;mirrigation headman who, though appointed by a committee,performs his duties subject to the Government; Agent's direc-tion and control, and is removable by the Government Agent is ** :ipublic servant employed by the Government of Ceylon *9 withinthe contemplation of the definition of the term "public officer"in section 6 of the Civil Procedure Code. There is no doubt thatnn arachchi appointed by the Government Agent, is a publicservant. ’’ Ijb is argued, however, that the intention of the PublicServants’ Liabilities Ordinance, is to protect only public servantswho receive salary for their services. I may note in this connectionthat the defendant's office is not altogether without any emolument.It appears that his duties include the collection of poll tax, forwhich he receives a commission of seven and a half per centum.He is also entrusted with the business of writing and grantingcattle vouchers, for which he is entitled to certain fees. Butthe protection provided by the Ordinance does not turn upon thefact of remuneration being received by the public servant. There
1 Cur. L. 11. X07.a fial. Q4S.3 A. C. R. m.
( 331 )
are n .^ords in the Ordinance .ending to such a conclusion, norfioe* ch? D/£jaat of thir legislation justify it. Mr. D. B. Jayatilleke,for *he plaintiff, has referred me to sub-section (2) of section 8,which excludes from vhe operation of tile Ordinance a public servant“ ir, receipt of a-salary in regard to his fixed appointment of morethan iu. 800 a znoMth.'* >/ut this does not necessarily imply thatothers who are pr recced Jaust receive a salary. The servant, inorder to be entitled to th* benefit of tae ’ Ordinance, must no doubthav* a fixed appointment Palaniappa Ohetty a. Fernando1 and Pererav. I'crera2) but the appr ntment need not have a salary attached toit. It is contended tha the intention of the Ordinance is to preventthe salary of a public servant from being seized in execution andto safeguard him and his family. But I think its object is muchwider. It is to secure to Government the services of its employesunhampered, and unimpaired by the burden of debts and consequentlitigation. As was pointed out in Narayanan Ohetiy v. Samara-singhe,* the object of the Ordinance is to “ prevent the obstructionof public business as a consequence of legal proceedings againstpublic servants,” and “ to protect the public and not the indi-vidual servant.” See also the observations of Hutchinson C.J.and Middleton *1. in Nagamvttn v. Kal hi roman.1 This being so.I think that the Commissioner is right in applying to the defendantin this case the provisions of the Ordinance and in dismissing theplaintiff's action. The only point left to be considered is thematter of costs. The defendant, in addition to his legal defence,pleaded payment*, and endeavoured to prove it by evidence, whichthe Commissioner did not accept. In these circumstances, I donot think that he is entitled to costs in the Court of Bequests.I therefore delete the order awarding him those costs. Subject tothis modification, the judgment appealed against is affirmed, withcosts of appeal.
Affirmed.
♦
19i5.
De SaktayoA..J.
JSatbo'v.
Punehirabt
1 i a. c. R. str.
* {1910) 13 ,V. L. H. 257.
s 3 Ba!. 243.
* 2 A. G. R. 165.