The Privy Council rules in favour of Kodeeswaran in the case of Kodeeswaran vs Attorney General. The Privy Council directs the Supreme Court to address the constitutional question of whether the Official Language Act of 1956 which made Sinhala the official language was in violation of Section 29 of the constitution, which prohibits discrimination.

A Tamil public servant, C Kodeeswaran, a senior officer in the executive grade of the Government Clerical service and President of the newly formed trade union – Arasanka Eluthu Vinaignar Sangam – refused to sit the Sinhala proficiency examinations which resulted in his losing his annual salary increments. In 1962, Kodeeswaran sued the Government in the Colombo District Court on the grounds that the regulation under which his increment was stopped was illegal and unreasonable. His argument was that the Official Language Act of 1956 which made Sinhala the sole official language was in violation of Section 29 of the constitution which prohibited discrimination. The trial judge, O.L. de Kretser, upheld the plea and ruled that the Official Language Act and the regulation was ultra vires and contravened Section 29 of the Constitution. In 1967, the government appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set aside the judgement on the ground that a government servant had no right to sue the government in a court of law for salary or increment; the Supreme Court did not address the constitutional issue and state that if it became necessary to consider it, the matter would be placed by the Chief Justice before a bench of five judges of the Supreme Court. Kodeeswaran subsequently appealed to the Privy Council which set aside the Supreme Court’s decision and directed that the Supreme Court should rule on the constitutional question.

Sources
Attorney-General of Ceylon v Kodeeswaran, Supreme Court S C. 408/64-D. C. Colombo, 1026/Z, Lawnet, Sri Lanka; Kodeeswaran v Attorney-General of Ceylon, Privy Council Appeal No. 38 of 1968, Lawnet, Sri Lanka.

Extract from the judgement of the Supreme Court
“A public servant in Ceylon has no right of redress by action in the Courts for a breach of any of the covenants and rules governing the salaries and conditions of service of public officers. This principle is operative except in respect of terms laid down by statute, and is unaffected, either expressly or by implication, by the provisions of the Ceylon Constitution.” Source: Supreme Court S. C. 408/64-D. C. Colombo, 1026/Z, Lawnet, Sri Lanka.

Extract from the judgement of the Privy Council
“A civil servant in Ceylon is entitled to sue the Crown for arrears of salary which, have accrued due, by the terms of his appointment, in respect of services which he has rendered during the currency of his employment. In such a case the fact that his appointment as a Crown servant is terminable at will, unless it is expressly otherwise provided by legislation, is not relevant. …

“Although in their Lordships’ opinion a civil servant in Ceylon does have a right of action against the Crown for arrears of salary which accrued due during the currency of his employment, this answer to the preliminary issue does not dispose of the Crown’s appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment of the District Judge. There are the other important constitutional issues to be decided upon which neither the Supreme Court nor their Lordships have heard argument. As already indicated, their Lordships would think it inappropriate to enter upon any of these matters without the benefit of the considered opinion of the Supreme Court of Ceylon thereon. They accordingly express no opinion upon any of the other issues as to the constitutionality of the Official Language Act or the effect of Treasury Circular No. 560 of 4th December 1961, or of any other material facts upon the plaintiff’s contract of employment. The case should be remitted to the Supreme Court for further consideration of these other issues and their Lordships will humbly advise Her Majesty accordingly.”