THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, MADRAS ANOTHER Vs. Y. SUBRAMANIAM, SENIOR PAY CLERK, CHIEF CASHIERS UNIT, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(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 Board's 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. 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 - -

(2.) 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/s. 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.

(3.) 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 was 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 by him in accordance with the directions of his superior officers. It is, therefore, that it is contended that he has become a Cashier or more an Accountant than a clerk, and his duties cannot, therefore, be said to be entirely clerical. This question had not been dealt with in detail in the judgment in Kandasami v/s. General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras W.P. 642 of 1972 which has been relied on by the learned Judge in the judgment under appeal. Counsel has placed before us the various meanings of the expression 'clerk', and we think that it will be useful to refer to those definitions in order to understand the true import of the word.