Smt. Sheela Devi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

.....victim held, the term income has different connotations for different purposes. a court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions must consider the question not only having regard to pay packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monetary terms. section 168 uses the word just compensation which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme takes recourse to payment of contributory provident fund, gratuity and other perks to attract the people who are efficient and hard working. different offers made to an officer by the employer, same may be either for the benefit of the employee himself or for the benefit of the entire family if some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined. the amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted.anjani kumar, j.1. petitioner by means of this writ petition has sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 3.8.2002, addressed to ram veer upadhyaya, energy minister, u. p. government pursuant to the direction dated 13.10.2002. issued by the said minister. the said minister issued a direction to appoint the petitioner on a particular post. needless to say that this will be an appointment contrary to the rules. petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus. a mandamus can only be issued if the petitioner has an enforceable right and respondents are under legal obligation. none of the two ingredients are there for issuance of mandamus.2. in this view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. the petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.