SECY OF STATE Vs. BHOLA NATH MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of arrears of pay and gratuity. The suit was instituted by one Bhola Nath Mitra who was in service under the East Indian Railway Company and w330026his case was that when he was discharged on a certificate of unfitness on medical grounds, he asked for gratuity under Rule (SIC) of the rules for the grant of gratuities on retirement, to subordinate railway employees and his application was refused. The Courts below both held that the plaintiffs case was a case of discharge on the ground of unfitness on medical grounds and on that finding the lower appellate Court gave to the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 52 odd as arrear pay as also for Rs. 384 as gratuity. Against this decision the Secretary of State for India in Council who was impleaded in the Court of appeal below as a defendant on the devolution of the interest of the East Indian Railway Company on him, has appealed before us. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondent. It was said that the present appeal is incompetent inasmuch as it has been filed by the Secretary of State for India in Council and not by the East Indian Railway Company. I do not think that there is any substance in this preliminary objection. It would appear that the Secretary of State for India in Council was a party in the Court of appeal below and the decree that was made by the lower appellate Court was against the Secretary of State for India in Council as well. That being so it cannot for a moment be contended that the Secretary of State for India in Council is not a party who can be said to have been adversely affected by the lower appellate Court's decree.

(2.) Coming now to the merits of the case it would seem that the only point that arises for consideration, is whether the lower appellate Court was justified in allowing the gratuity to the plaintiff on the basis of Rule 8 of the Rules for the grant of gratuities. Rule 8 runs thus; In case of men whose service is less than 15 years and who have been discharged either in consequence of reduction of establishment or a certificate of unfitness on medical grounds, not due to the employee's own fault, a gratuity may be allowed which shall ordinarily be limited to half a month's pay for each year of service or six month's pay in all and which may in special cases where circumstances warrant be raised to a full months pay subject to a similar maximum.

(3.) On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the word "may" in this Rule means shall." But no reason was assigned why the word may," as it is to be found in this rule, should be taken to mean shall." Rule 8 seems to me to be only an enabling rule enabling the directors to pay gratuity from the railway revenue, leaving the matter of payment of gratuity entirely at their discretion. It was said that the discretion in the present case should have been properly exercised. I could have understood this contention if the exercise of the discretion was something that had been imposed on the Railway Administration by any Statute. But there is nothing to show that it was imposed on them in that way. Section 47, Railways Act 1890, enumerates the purposes for which rules can be framed under the provisions of that Act. But the granting of gratuity finds no place in the list of these purposes. Besides, gratuity, in my opinion, is something of the nature of a gift and a gift is not a thing which can be compelled. I am therefore of opinion that Rule 8 of the Gratuity Rules, did not impose any legal liability on the Railway Administration to pay any gratuity to the plaintiff nor did it confer on the plaintiff any right which he could lawfully demand. The result therefore is that the decree of the lower appellate Court in so far as it awarded to the plaintiff Rs. 384 as gratuity is set aside and the appeal succeeds to this extent only. The appellant is entitled to his costs in this Court and in proportion to his success in the Courts below. Jack, J.