023-SLLR-SLLR-1998-1-CYRIL-FERNANDO-v.-RATNASIRI-WICKRAMANAYAKE-AND-OTHERS.pdf
166
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(1998) 1 Sri LR.
CYRIL FERNANDO
v.RATNASIRI WICKRAMANAYAKE AND OTHERS
SUPREME COURTDHEERARATNE, J.,
WADUGODAPITIYA, J. ANDGUNAWARDANA, J.
S.C. (F.R.) APPLICATION NO. 324/96
NOVEMBER 3RD, 11TH, 1997, DECEMBER 12TH, 1997.
Fundamental Rights – Transfer of ownership of government vehicles to SeniorPublic Officers at retirement – Public Administration Circular No. 24/93 — Eligibilityof an employee of a Public Corporation – Article 12 (1) of the Constitution.
Held:
Part III of the Public Administration Circular 24/93 provides for the transfer, toa Senior Public Officer, on the eve of his retirement, of the ownership of thevehicle which had been assigned to him for his official use. It relates to governmentvehicles and not to the transfer of ownership of vehicles belonging to corporations,statutory boards, local authorities, etc.; and the officer entitled to such transfermust be a public officer viz. a person holding paid office under the Republic asopposed to a corporation employee.
sc
Cyril Fernando v. Ratnasiri Wickramanayake and Others
(Dheeraratne, J.)
167
APPLICATION for relief for infringement of fundamental rights.Varuna Basnayake, PC with Ms. Marina Fernando for the petitioner.K. Sripavan DSG for the Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. vutt.
December 17, 1997.
DHEERARATNE, J.
The petitioner was employed by the 3rd respondent corporation, whichis a statutory body established in terms of the State AgriculturalCorporations Act, No. 11 of 1972. He was appointed as a seniorexecutive officer in 1976, the deputy general manager in 1985, thedeputy director produce / warehousing in 1990, and the deputy director(estates) in 1994. He counted 19 1/2 years' of service with the 3rdrespondent corporation up to his retirement in August 1995. Thepetitioner complains that his fundamental right guaranteed under Article12 (1) was violated by all or anyone of the 1st to 4th respondents^by their refusal, on the eve of his retirement, to transfer the ownershipof the vehicle assigned to him for his official use. The bone ofcontention between him on the one hand and the respondents onthe other, is the application and interpretation of part three of the PublicAdministration Circular 24/93 (the Circular), dealing with transfer ofthe ownership of vehicles.
The petitioner contended that he was a "senior public officer" withinthe meaning of part three of the Circular and therefore was entitled,at his retirement, as of right, to obtain the transfer of ownership ofthe vehicle which was assigned to him. It was further contendedon his behalf that the meaning of the term “senior public officer" isfound in paragraph (ix) under category II in the annexure I of theCircular; ahd that reads "officers who are of and above the level ofa deputy head of a department/institution in government departments/institutions, government corporations, statutory bodies, local authoritiesand government-owned companies, who have a minimum of five years,continuous service in a permanent post and confirmed in the suchpermanent post". The respondents do not agree with that interpretationand that has warranted a closer examination of the Circular by us.
168
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(1998) 1 Sri L ft.
The circular is titled "Importation of vehicles and issue of usedvehicles from Procurement and Advisory Service Unit (PASU) onconcessionary terms and transfer of ownership of government vehiclesto officers". The preface to the Circular states that the Circular consistsof three parts; the first two deal with (to state briefly) Importation andPurchase from PASU, respectively; and the deals with (to state verbatim)“Transfer of Ownership of Government Vehicles". In part one dealingwith importation, under the subtitle "Eligibility", in the group marked(a), it is stated "All persons covered under categories I, II & III inAnnexure I are eligible to make use of this concession". The term"all persons" is used there because in these categories there arepersons other than “officers", like Members of Parliament, certainPrivate Secretaries, certain members of the Teaching Staff of Uni-versities, etc. It is the description of officers under (ix), in the categoryII of Annexure I, that the petitioner states must be resorted to inconstruing the meaning of the term "Senior Public Officer" in part threeof the Circular. In part two, which deals with purchase of used vehiclesfrom the PASU too, there is a subtitle called "Eligibility" as in partone and it is stated that "all persons covered under categories containedin Annexure VI are eligible to make use of the concession . . ."
In part three of the circular dealing exclusively with the transferof ownership, under the subtitle "Terms and Conditions" item (a) reads:"This has to be considered as once in a lifetime concession to SeniorPublic Officers, who have not availed of the facility under part I".Under the subtitle "Eligibility" it is stated "Officers with continuous,uninterrupted service up to the date of retirement or on extension afterreaching the age of 55 are eligible to apply". It is noteworthy thatunlike the specifications given under the subtitle "Eligibility" in partsI and II, the specifications under that subtitle in part III do not referto any category of persons or officers with reference to any annexure.The reason for this difference is quite obvious; the category of officersto whom it applies is described in the body of that part itself underthe subtitle "Terms and Conditions".
As the title to the Circular and its preface indicate, part three ofthe Circular relates to transfer of ownership of Government vehicles.This part of the Circular is therefore not applicable to the transferof ownership of vehicles belonging to corporations, statutory boards,local authorities, etc. An officer who is entitled on the eve of hisretirement, to obtain a transfer of ownership of a government vehicle,
sc
Cyril Fernando v. Ratnasiri Wickramanayake and Others
(Dheeraratne, J.)
169
which had been assigned to him and which he had been using,must necessarily be a government servant and not, for instance, acorporation employee. I find no justification to refer to categories ofofficers eligible under part one to discover the meaning of the term"senior public officer" in part three. By common usage, the term publicofficer denotes a government servant or an officer who holds paidoffice under the Republic as opposed to a corporation employee. TheChambers 20th Century Dictionary makes no reference to a "publicofficer"; but, a "public servant" is defined as a person employed bythe government. By implication, a "public officer" should mean anofficer employed by the government The Establishments Code statesthat an "Officer" means a "Public Officer"; who is in turn defined asa person who holds any paid office under the Republic and specificallyexcludes from within its meaning, amongst some others, "an employeeof a Public Corporation, a Statutory Board or an Institution vestedin the Government". The Sinhala version of the Circular puts the matterbeyond any doubt where the term "senior public officers" is referredto as "jeshta rajaye niladhareen".
For the above reasons, I hold that the petitioner was ineligible,on the eve of his retirement, to have obtained the transfer of ownershipof the vehicle belonging to the 3rd respondent Corporation. I find noviolation of his fundamental right by 1st to 4th respondents. Theapplication is dismissed without costs.
WADUGODAPITIYA, J. – I agree.
GUNAWARDANA, J. – I agree.
Application dismissed.