Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1977 Supreme(Mad) 357

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. GOVINDAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VARADARAJAN
The General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras Another
Versus
Y. Subramaniam, Senior Pay Clerk, Chief Cashiers Unit, Southern Railway, Madras
W.A. No. 359 of 1975
Decided On :Decided On : 03-08-1977

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:K. Venkateswara Rao, Advocate.
For the Respondent:S. Balathandapani, Advocate.

A 'ministerial railway servant' is a railway servant of a subordinate service whose duties are 'entirely clerical'.

Headnote:
RAILWAY SERVICE - RETIREMENT AGE - MINISTERIAL RAILWAY SERVANT - DEFINITION - DUTIES OF PAY CLERK - WHETHER ENTIRELY CLERICAL - INTERPRETATION OF RULE 2046(B) OF THE INDIAN RAILWAY ESTABLISHMENT CODE - VOLUME II.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a pay clerk in the Southern Railway, Madras, entered service and was confirmed before 31st March 1938. He claimed the benefit of Rule 2046(b) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code - Volume II, which provides for the retirement of ministerial railway servants at the age of 60 years. The Railway Board contended that the respondent was not a 'ministerial railway servant' and therefore not entitled to the benefit of the rule.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the respondent was a 'ministerial railway servant' whose duties were entirely clerical. The court relied on the definition of 'clerk' in various dictionaries and legal dictionaries, which generally define a clerk as a person employed to keep records, accounts, or correspondence, or to perform other duties of a similar nature. The court also considered the detailed duties of the respondent, which included keeping accounts, disbursing money, and making entries in books, and found that these duties were entirely clerical.
Issues: Whether the respondent was a 'ministerial railway servant' entitled to the benefit of Rule 2046(b) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code - Volume II.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent was a 'ministerial railway servant' whose duties were entirely clerical. The court relied on the definition of 'clerk' in various dictionaries and legal dictionaries, which generally define a clerk as a person employed to keep records, accounts, or correspondence, or to perform other duties of a similar nature. The court also considered the detailed duties of the respondent, which included keeping accounts, disbursing money, and making entries in books, and found that these duties were entirely clerical.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras, and the Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi, against the judgment of Ramanujam, J. allowing the respondent's writ petition.

Judgment :-

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:

1. This is an appeal by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras, and the Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi, against the judgment of Ramanujam, J. allowing W.P. No. 687 of 1972, taken by the respondent seeking the relief that he be given the benefit of the Railway Boards Circular letter No. E. (P.A.) 1-71/RT/11, dated 10th January, 1972, and seeking further orders that this court may deem fit and proper to pass.

2. That the respondent entered service and was confirmed before 31st March, 1938 is not disputed. He was at that time called a ‘pay clerk’. The rule relating to the retirement is contained in the Indian Railway Establishment Code—Volume II. The relevant Rule is R. 2046 (F.R. 56) which reads as follows—

“(a) Except as otherwise provided in this rule, every railway servant shall retire on the day be attains the age of fifty eight years.

(b) A ministerial railway servant who entered Government service on or before the 31st March, 1938, and held on that date—(i) a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent post, or (ii) a permanent post in a provisional substantive capacity under clause (d) of R. 2008 and continued to hold the same without interruption until he was confirmed in that post, shall be retained in service till the day he attains the age of sixty years.

Note: For the purpose of this Clause, the expression Government Servant’ includes service rendered in a former Provincial Government and in ex-Company and ex-State Railways”

The case of the respondent was that he was entitled to the benefit of R. 2046(b). An amendment was made to the note to the said rule by providing that the rule will apply only “If the rules of the Company or the State had a provision similar to clause (b) above.” The validity of this portion of the note came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Railway Board v. Pitchumani A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 508, and the Supreme Court held that such a provision cannot be sustained, and struck down that portion which we have put in quotation above. After that judgment was rendered, a circular was issued by the Railway Board on 10th January, 1972, and the respondent had claimed the benefit of Cl.(e) of paragraph 5 of that Circular, in the writ petition. This claim was met by the appellants by contending that R. 2046 was not applicable to the respondent because the respondent was not a ‘ministerial railway servant’.

3. A ‘ministerial railway servant’ is defined in R. 2003(17) of the Railway Fundamental Rules— Service Conditions, Pay and Deputation—which is contained in the Railway Establishment Code— Volume II. The learned Judge in the judgment under appeal rejected the contention by relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Kandasami v. General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras W.P.642 of 1972, which was disposed of along with a number of other cases by a common judgment.

4. Before us, counsel on behalf of the Railways, Sri K. Venkateswara Rao contended that the definition in R. 2003(17) insists that a ministerial servant must be a railway servant of a subordinate service whose duties are ‘entirely clerical’. According to counsel, the duties of the respondent are not entirely clerical. The duties of the respondent have been detailed in a statement filed before this Court which is seen as an annexure to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Railways. It is stated that the original designation of the respondent as pay Clerk has also been changed into that of Cashier. In view of the duties enumerated in the annexure to the counter affidavit and because of the change in the nomenclature of the designation, on behalf of the Railways it was contended that the duties of the respondent are not ‘entirely clerical’. Emphasis was made on the fact that the respondent w as entrusted with cash and that he had to disburse the cash, get proper vouchers and receipts and had also to keep accounts regarding the cash entrusted to him and which was disbursed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document