JUDGMENT : H.N. Seth, J.—This appeal u/s 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, by General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi and Northern Railway, Allahabad is directed against an order dated 31-1-1974 awarding, u/s 30(1) Workmen's Compensation Act, compensation amounting to Rs. 12,600/- to Sri R.R. Verma. 2. According to the claimant, he was posted as Assistant Station Master (A.S.M) at Bhaupur Railway Station of Northern Railway. On 29-3-1970, while he was boarding a train at Rura Railway Station for coming back to Bhaupur for rejoining his duties, he slipped and came under the wheels of a train. The accident resulted in serious injuries to his right forearm which disabled him from performing his duties. He, therefore, was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 12,600/- as compensation. 3. The claim was contested by the Railway Administration. It was contended on its behalf that as at the time of the accident, Sri R.R. Verma was not on duty, and as the accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment he was not entitled to receive any compensation from the Railway Administration. 4. The Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation observed that the expression 'accident arising out of and in the course of employment' has to be understood in a liberal sense. According to him, the accident took place while Sri Verma was trying to board the train at Rura for going to Bhau-pur where he had to rejoin his duty. He would not have been there at the railway station Rura and would not have been involved in the accident, if had he not been proceeding to resume his duties as a railway servant. As a matter of fact, the accident took place while Sri Verma was proceeding to rejoin his duties and that this aspect of his act cannot be separated from the actual work of the Assistant Station Master. Action of Verma at the time of the accident, therefore, was part and parcel of his employment. In the result, he held that Sri Verma sustained the injuries in an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment and awarded him compensation amounting to Rs. 12,600/-. 5. Action of Verma at the time of the accident, therefore, was part and parcel of his employment. In the result, he held that Sri Verma sustained the injuries in an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment and awarded him compensation amounting to Rs. 12,600/-. 5. In this appeal, learned Counsel appearing for the Railway administration urged that Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation was, in the circumstances of the case, not justified in concluding that the accident in question arose out of and in the course of Sri Verma's employment with the railway administration and in awarding him compensation on that basis. 6. It is not disputed that at the relevant time Sri Verma had been posted at Bhaupur as an A.S.M. On 29-3-1970 after putting in full work i.e. from 1.00 to 9.00 hours he obtained permission of the Station Master to leave Bhaupur for visiting Rura where his family was staying. The same day, in the evening he was returning from Rura for rejoining his duties as A. S. M. at Bhaupur. While he was trying to board the train at Rura, for coming to Bhaupur the accident took place, as result of which he received injuries in his right forearm. 7. The question, that arises for consideration is as to whether in the circumstances it can be said that the accident resulting in injuries to Sri Verma arose out of and in the course of his employment with the railway administration. 8. According to the learned Counsel for Sri Verma, the accident took place when he was proceeding to join his duties as A. S. M. at Bhaupur. His presence at railway station Rura and his attempt to board the train at that place were closely connected with his official duty and, therefore, it can be said that the accident arose out of and during the course of his employment. In support of this submission, learned Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking, Bombay v. Mrs. Agnes AIR 1964 S.C. 123. In support of this submission, learned Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking, Bombay v. Mrs. Agnes AIR 1964 S.C. 123. In that case a driver in the employment of B.E.S.T, Undertaking was, after performing his duties, returning to his place of residence by one of the buses belonging to the B. E. S. T. Undertaking, which was involved in an accident resulting in his death, while dealing with the claim for compensation made by the wife of the deceased, it was held that the accident in which claimant's husband lost his life arose in the course of his employment with the B.E.S.T. Undertaking. Learned Counsel contends that likewise in the instant case also the accident took place while Sri R.R. Verma was trying to board a railway train run by Respondent, for joining his duties at Bhaupur. Accordingly it should be held that the accident in question arose out of or in the course of Sri Verma's employment. 9. In the case of Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. Vs. Bai Valu Raja and Others, , Imam, J. of the Supreme Court observed thus: As a rule, the employment of the workman does not commence until he has reached the place of employment and does not continue when he has left the place of employment., the journey to and from the place of employment being excluded. It is now well-settled, however, that this is subject to the theory of notional extension of the employer's premises so as to include an area which the workman passes and repasses in going to and in leaving the actual place of work. There may be reasonable extension in both time and place and a workman be regarded as in the course of his employment even though he had not reached or had left his employer's premises. The facts and circumstances of each case will have to be examined very carefully in order to determine whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment of a workman, keeping in view at all times this theory of 'notional extension'. The facts and circumstances of each case will have to be examined very carefully in order to determine whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment of a workman, keeping in view at all times this theory of 'notional extension'. It is well-settled that when a workman is on public road or a public place or on a public transport he is there as any other member of the public and is not there in the course of his employment unless the very nature of his employment makes it necessary for him to be there. A workman is not in the course of his employment from the moment he leaves his home and is on his way to his work. He is in the course of his employment if he reaches the place of work or point or an area which comes within the theory of notional extension, outside of which the employer is not liable to pay compensation for any accident happening to him. Facts of the aforesaid case were that workman of the company had to go for joining their duties as also those returning therefrom had to cross a creek by means of a public ferry run by certain boatmen. On the date of the accident, while the workman was returning from his duty the boat by which he was being ferried capsized and a number of workmen were either drowned or injured. While dealing with the question as to whether the accident in question occurred in the course of employment of the concerned workman, the learned Judge of the Supreme Court ruled that the accident that took place while the workmen were returning to their places on a ferry on which they were there as members of the public, cannot be said to be an accident arising in the course of their employment and that the notional extension of employee's premises could not be extended upto that point. Accordingly, the employer was not liable to pay compensation. 10. In the case of Alderman v. Great Western Railway Co. (1937) A.C. 454, the House of Lords had to consider a question similar to that has arisen before me. Accordingly, the employer was not liable to pay compensation. 10. In the case of Alderman v. Great Western Railway Co. (1937) A.C. 454, the House of Lords had to consider a question similar to that has arisen before me. In that case, the applicant, a travelling ticket collector in the employment of Respondent railway company, had in the course of his duty, to travel from Oxford, where his home was, to Swamsea where he had to stay overnight, returning thence on the following day to Oxford. Being also qualified as a guard and, as such liable to be called upon in an emergency, he was required by the railway company to leave, and he infact left with them, the address of his Swamsea lodging. Apart from this obligation he had an unfettered right as to how he spent his time at Swamsea between signing off and signing on, and he could reach the station by any route or by any method he chose. In proceeding one morning from his lodging to Swamsea Station to perform his usual duty, he fell in the street and sustained an injury in respect of which he claimed compensation It was held by learned law Lords that while in the street proceeding from his lodging to the station, the applicant was not performing any duty under the contract of service, that, therefore the accident did not arise in the course of his employment; and consequently, that he was not entitled to compensation. 11. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision, I find that in the instant case also the claimant had come to Rura in connection with his private work and it was open to him to reach Bhaupur by any mode or in any manner that suited him. Accordingly when the claimant went to the Rura Railway Station, with a view to proceed to Bhaupur, it cannot be said that he was performing any duty for which he had been employed. The accident in question, therefore, did not arise in the course of his employment and he would not be entitled to receive any compensation. 12. So far as the case of B.E.S.T. Undertaking v. Mrs. The accident in question, therefore, did not arise in the course of his employment and he would not be entitled to receive any compensation. 12. So far as the case of B.E.S.T. Undertaking v. Mrs. Agnes AIR 1964 S.C. 123 is concerned a close scrutiny of the judgment would show that the case of the House of Lords in Alderman v. Great Western Railway Co (1937) A.C. 454 had been brought to the notice of the learned Judges. The learned Judges did not disapprove of the decision in Alderman's case (1937) A.C. 454. They decided the case on a different principle, namely, that the conditions of service of the workman employed in the case of B.E.S.T. Undertaking AIR 1964 S.C. 123 as also the rules of service applicable to them showed that while returning from his place of work, the workman in question was obliged to travel by the transport provided by B.E.S.T. Undertaking, there was therefore, while the workman was. so travelling a notional extension of the field of his employment of the course of said transport. Accordingly, when the accident took place in such circumstances it can be held that it took place within the sphere of or in course of workman's employment and the employer would be liable to pay compensation. However, the notional extension of the field of employment cannot be extended to cases where the interest of services do not dictate that the workman should while proceeding to join his duties or returning therefrom must use a particular means of transport provided by the employer. In such case the normal rule that the course of the employment of a workman commences when he reaches the place of his work and ends with his departure therefrom, becomes applicable. 13. In the case before us, Sri Verma had gone to Rura not in connection with his duties as A.S.M. Bhaupur but purely with a view to see the members of his family. Accordingly his visit to Rura was not within the sphere of his duties. While proceeding from, Rura to Bhaupur for the purpose of rejoining his duties, the position of Sri Verma merely was that of a person who leaves his home for reaching the place of his work. Accordingly his visit to Rura was not within the sphere of his duties. While proceeding from, Rura to Bhaupur for the purpose of rejoining his duties, the position of Sri Verma merely was that of a person who leaves his home for reaching the place of his work. There is nothing on the record to show either that in proceeding from Rura to Bhaupur Sri Verma was obliged to use the transport provided by the Railways or that it was necessary for him to do so in the interest of service. He was present at Rura railway station like any other member of public intending to use the public transport for his own purpose. In. the circumstances, the course of or sphere of Sri Verma's employment did not extend upto Rura Railway Station and it cannot be said that when he slipped and received injuries on his forearm he received the same in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. 14. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Commissioner dated 31-1-1974 is set aside. In the circumstances, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.