D.K. Kapur, J.
1. On a notice to show cause why the petition should not be admitted and on considering the reply to the same, Rule D.B , was issued and arguments were heard. The question before the Court is a very short one. The petitioner joined the service of the Delhi Municipal Corporation in 1950 on probation as a driver and became permanent in 1952. When the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was constituted, he became an employee of the Corporation and has continued to be employed as a truck driver in the office of the C.S.E. Department, City Zone of the Corporation. According to the petition, the petitioner is to retire from service when he attains the age of 60 years because F.R. 56(b) applies to him as he is a 'workman'. The petitioner will attain the age of 60 years on 30th April, 1984, but he has been retired with effect from 30th April, 1982, as per office order Annexure 'A'. Before 30thApril, 1982, the petitioner wrote to the Commissioner of the Corporation claiming that he was to retire only when he was 60 years old and he renewed this request by another letter written in May, 1982. Thereafter, the petition was filed.
2. In the reply to the petition, it was claimed that disputed questions of facts were raised, and also, that the petitioner was not covered by Rule 56(b) of the Fundamental Rules on the ground that he was not a workman.
3. It is the admitted case of both parties that the Service Regulations framed for the Municipal Corporation employees called the Delhi Municipal Corporation Service Regulations, 1959, have made the Fundamental Rules applicable also to the Municipal employees because they are to serve on the same terms and conditions as Central Government servants as per Regulation No. 4. There is, thereforee, no doubt that F.R. 56(b) would apply to the petitioner if he is a 'workman'. The Rule reads :
'A workman who is governed by these rules shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years.
Note In this clause word workman means ;
'skilled, semi-skilled, or unkilled artisan employed on a monthlyrate of pay in an industrial or work charged establishment.'
4. The term 'workman' used in the Rule may be capable of being read in various ways, but the Note appearing below the clause shows it is to be applied to the case of an artisan employed on a monthly rate of pay in an industrial or work charged establishment, driver is undoubtedly a skilled or semi-skilled person, and the word 'artisan' which means a handicrafts man or mechanic according to the 'Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary is wide enough to include a driver of a vehicle.
5. The real point which distinguishes an artisan from others is that he works with his hands, i.e., he labours manually and physically in contradistinction to others who may be employing intelligence, initiative or other attributes, which are not purely physical in nature. A driver by the very nature of his profession and employment uses his feet and hands to drive vehicles, is may be a car or truck. He is, thereforee, an artisan. No doubt, he is getting a monthly rate of pay and the next question may be whether he is employed in an industrial or work charged establishment. In this connection, it does appear that the Municipal Corporation is a work charged establishment, because it provides certain services to the citizens, and in any event, the petitioner in question is working in the C.S.E. Department which is concerned with conservancy and sanitation. In fact, it is admitted in the reply that the petitioner is a refuse truck driver. In other words, the refuse of the city which is collected and removed by the Municipal Corporation so as to keep the streets clean and free from disease and is transported in trucks to dumping grounds is the work on which the petitioner is employed. The petitioner, thereforee very clearly, appears to be fully covered by the definition of 'workman' and hence, he is to retire at the age of 60 and not at the age of 58. Consequent to this conclusion, we have to hold that the petitioner has to retire in 1984 and not in 1982.
6. We accordingly grant the writ and hold that the petitioner has to retire at the age of 60 on 30th April, 1984 and we issue a mandamus placing him back in the service of the Corporation. The petitioner will get costs.