Disanayaka «. Yalawara.
1948Present: Basnayake J.DISANAYAKA, Appellant, and YATAWARA, Respondent.S. C. 116—G. R. Kandy, 2,477.
Public Servants (Inabilities) Ordinance—Clerk employed by Sanitary Board—Is he-entitled to benefits of Ordinance ?—Section 4.
A. clerk employed by a Sanitary Board and paid oat of its funds is not a-publie servant within the meaning of the Public Servants (Liabilities) Ordinance. 1
1 (1947) 1 AU E. B. p. 116.2(1924) A. D. p. 60 at p. 68.
* (1924) A. D.p. 261 at p. 263.
RASNAVAK K 3.—Diaanayaka v. Yalatoara.
j^PPlilAT. from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests,Kandy.
H. W. Jayaioardene, for plaintiff, appellant.
8. R- Wijayatilahe, for defendant, respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
March 17, 1948. Basnayake J.—
The appellant instituted this action to recover a sum of Rs. 171.75due to him from the respondent on a promissory note dated March 31,1941. The latter pleaded that he was employed as a olerk in the Kadu-gannawa Urban Council and olaimed the benefit <Jf the Public Servants(Liabilities) Ordinance.
The respondent first obtained employment as a temporary olerk in1933, in the Tea Control Department of the Kandy Kaohcheri. In1937 he was made a permanent clerk in the Sanitary Board Departmentof the Kandy Kaohcheri. He was paid by the Sanitary Board out of thefunds of the Sanitary Board. In January, 1945, he was appointeda clerk in the Urban Council of Kadugannawa. He also stated thatwhen in Government service he was not a member of the GovernmentClerical Service.
On this evidence the learned Commissioner of Requests held that hewas entitled to the benefits of the Public Servants (Liabilities) Ordinance.This appeal is from that decision.
Counsel for the appellant submits that a clerk employed by the SanitaryBoard and paid out of its funds is not a public servant for the purposes•of the Public Servants (Liabilities) Ordinanoe and is therefore notentitled to its benefits. In that Ordinance (Seotion 4) the expressionpublic servant means a person employed in the service of the Governmentof the Island, or of any Municipal Council or District Council, or LocalBoard, or of any provincial or District Committee established under theThoroughfares Ordinance. It should be observed that a person employedin a Sanitary Board docs not come within its ambit. Neither the SmallTowns Sanitary Ordinance nor the Publio Servants (Liabilities) Ordinanoecontains any indication as to the reason for the exclusion of the officersand servants of a Sanitary Board from the benefits of the latter Ordinanoe.A Sanitary Board is a local authority like any other with full power tomanage its own affairs, to levy rates, to establish and maintain publioservioes, to provide publio amenities, to employ and pay its officers andservants, and to make all neoessary disbursements out of its fund. Bethat as it may a person employed in the service of a Sanitary Boardcannot claim the benefits of the Public Servants (Liabilities) Ordinanoeunless he can at the same time bring himself within any of the classes ofemployees enumerated in the definition of Publio Servant in thatOrdinance. The respondent dearly was not a public servant in 1941,the year in which he oontraoted the liability that the appellant seeksto enforce.
I allow the appeal with costs and send the case back for thedetermination of the appellant’s claim.