029-NLR-NLR-V-54-FERNANDO-Appellant-and-KHAN-Respondent.pdf
142
ROSE O. J.—Fernando v. Khan
Present: Rose C. J. and Swan J.
FERNANDO, Appellant, and KHAN, RespondentS. C. 75—.D. C. Colombo, 12,190 j3.
Public Servants (Liabilities) Ordinance (Cap. 8%), s. 2 (2)—Amending Act of 1931—Retrospective effect.
The Act of March 15, 1951, by which section. 2 (2) of the Public Servants(Liabilities) Ordinance was amended so as to entitle a public servant to thebenefit of the Ordinance whose salary is not in excess of Rs. 520 a month hasno retrospective effect.
.^LPPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Colombo.
T. Samarawickreme, for the defendant appellant.
W. Tambiah, with G. C. Niles, for the plaintiff respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
September 5, 1952. Rose C.J.—
The plaintiff-respondent sued the defendant-appellant for the recoveryof a sum of Rs. 730 • 50 being principal and interest due on a promissorynote dated 10th December, 1948. The action was filed on the 25thJanuary, 1951.
PTJL.LE J.—Ismail v. WeUesinghe
143
The appellant is a Public Servant in receipt of a salary in excess ofRs. 300 a month but less than Rs. 520, and he contended that he wasentitled to the benefit of section 2 of the Public Servants (Liabilities)Ordinance (Chapter 88), in as much as section 2 (2) of the Ordinancewas amended on the 15th March, 1951, by providing that a Public Servantis entitled to the benefit of the Ordinance whose salary in regard to hisfixed appointment is not in excess of Rs. 520 a month, whereas theoriginal limit was Rs. 300.
This not being an Act which deals with procedure and there beingno express provision from which an intention can be inferred to givethe Act retrospective effect, I consider that the learned District Judgewas correct in coming to the conclusion that the Act could have norelation to an action filed prior to 15th March, 1951. The case wouldseem to fall within what Lord Davey describes as, “ The well knownrule on the construction of statutes, that the rights of parties must bedecided according to the law as it existed when the action wascommenced.” 1
The appeal, is therefore, dismissed with costs.
Swasf J.—I agree.., •
Appeal dismissed.