( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against an order of remand made by the 1st Civil Judge of Saharanpur in a suit that was filed by the plaintiff, Bhagat Bam, who is the respondent in the appeal before me, for the recovery of Rs. 1,700/-as arrears of allowances due to him from the Railway administration. The plaintiff Bhagat Ram was a III Grade Guard in the E, P. Railway at saharanpur. He was suspected of having committed an offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian penal Code and was, therefore, prosecuted for a charge punishable under that section. On his prosecution he was suspended by the Railway Administration. Bhagat Ram was later acquitted by the court which tried him on the 20th of May, 1949, but he was nevertheless under suspension from the 6th of July, 1948, to the 4th of August, 1949. The plaintiff was reinstated, apparently, on the 4th of August, 1949, and thereafter the question arose about paying him his salary and allowances to which he would be entitled under the rules framed by the Railway Establishment Code. The plaintiff had been, awarded his full salary by the Railway Administration on reinstatement; further he was awarded 75 per cent, of the salary in lieu of running allowances.

( 2 ) AS a driver the plaintiff was entitled to claim, what is known as running allowance. Rule 609 of the Rules makes provision for running allowances. These allowances are granted to railway servants of certain classes who perform duties directly connected with the charge of moving trains. This allowance is calculated at a rate per hundred miles run with a train carrying passenger traffic or on the basis of each trip of 8 hours performed on such a train, and is also payable in lieu of other kinds of detention and travelling allowance. This allowance is permissible to drivers, shunters, firemen, guards, etc. There was apparently some difficulty felt in regard to the actual calculation of these running allowances in the case of such persons who, though entitled to them, could not earn these allowances because of no fault of theirs. The rules make provision. for such a contingency and also for other contingencies. Rules 510 and 511 are the relevant rules covering the aforementioned cases. Under Rule 510 -- a rule that is headed special Running Allowance -- provision is made as follows :

" (1) When, in the interest of railway service, staff included in any one of the classes enumerated in the preceding rule (I have already indicated that class above) are required to perform duties other than those involving the accompanying of a running train carrying passenger traffic, or when they are required to wort on Sundays or certain approved holidays, or when, in circumstances beyond their control, they are not able to earn a full days running allowance, they are eligible for the grant of a special running allowance, either in addition to or in lieu of the ordinary running allowance. "

Sub-rule (2) gives the instances in which the grant of special running allowance is recognised by Rule 511 the General Manager of a railway is empowered to frame subsidiary rules prescribing the rates of running allowances and the detailed conditions for the grant of special running allowances, having regard to the local conditions of the railway. These rules, which the General Manager was empowered to frame, were to cover cases of casual leave except special casual leave granted to coyer periods of quarantine, etc. ; for periods of strikes; or such cases as are not in contravention of any rule relevant to the grant of officiating pay of leave salary, etc. By Sub-rule (4) of that Rule provision is m de that the average running allowances could not exceed 75 per cent, of pay. In this particular case what appears to have happened is that the authority, which was entitled to determine this question, made the following order on the Departmental appeal which had been preferred by Bhagat Ram:-"with reference to appeal dated 12-10-1949, from Shri Bhagat Ra