Bhanwar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

.....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. - union of india, air 1962 sc 1344. 7. however, after noting the aforesaid decisions the division bench has in para 15 held that it is not only desirable but necessary that the selection of government servants for appointment in state service should be through an independent and autonomous body like the commission......chandra srivastava v. state of u.p- and others, (1995) splbec 1862 should be reconsidered.3. in writ petition no. 12718 of 1998 the petitioner has challenged the validity of the orders dated 19.3.1998 annexures 6 to 10 of the writ petition.4. the facts of the case are that the petitioners was promoted from the post of inspector to dy. superintendent of police in u.p. without consulting the u.p. public service commission. however, subsequently in view of the aforesaid division bench decision in sushil chandra srivastava's case (supra), the impugned reversion orders were passed which have been challenged in this writ petition.5. in our opinion, the division bench decision in sushil chandra srivastava's case (supra) has been incorrectly decided and deserves to be overruled.6. the aforesaid division bench has noted that article 320(3) of the constitution has been held to be directory by the supreme court in state of u.p. v. manbodhan lal srivastava, air 1957 sc 912, which has been followed in major u.r. bhattv. union of india, air 1962 sc 1344.7. however, after noting the aforesaid decisions the division bench has in para 15 held that it is not only desirable but necessary that the selection of government servants for appointment in state service should be through an independent and autonomous body like the commission.8. in the present case, it is admitted that the selection in question from the post of inspector to dy. superintendent of police was done by a high power committee consisting of very senior officers appointed by the state government. in our opinion, therefore, it cannot be said that the procedure for making such selection was arbitration or illegal.9. it may also be mentioned that the proviso of article 320(3) of the constitution permits the governor to make regulations specifying the matters in which either generally or in any particular class of case or in any particular circumstances it should not be necessary for the public service commission to be.....