Mohd. Hashim Vs. Board of Madarsa Education and anr.

- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 168; [s.b. sinha & h.s. bedi, jj ] determination of compensation meaning of income of 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......in civil misc. writ petition no. 23990 of 2008, whereby time for filing counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit in the writ petition has been granted and the case has been directed to be listed after the expiry of the period mentioned in the said order.2. no order appears to have been passed on the stay application filed alongwith the writ petition.3. the grievance of the petitioner-appellant is that the order dated 13.5.2008 amounts to rejection of the prayer for stay made in the stay application accompanying the writ petition, and the same has resulted in making the writ petition infructuous.4. sri m.a. khan, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant submits that the order dated 13.5.2008 amounts to rejection of the prayer for stay made in the stay application accompanying the writ petition, and, therefore, the special appeal is maintainable against the said order.5. having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant, we find ourselves unable to accept the same.6. no order has been passed on the stay application accompanying the writ petition either granting or refusing to grant the stay order. by the order dated 13.5.2008, the learned single judge has only granted time fore filing counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit, and the petitioner-appellant cannot possibly be aggrieved by the said order.7. under chapter viii, rule 5 of the rules of the court, 1952, special appeal lies against a 'judgment' passed by a learned single judge.8. in the present case, there is no judgment whereby the petitioner-appellant has been aggrieved and, therefore, the present special appeal is not maintainable.9. sri m.a. khan, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant submits that the examinations are scheduled to be held with effect from 31.5.2008.10. he further submits that at the time of filing of the writ petition, the examination-schedule had not been announced and therefore, in paragraph 29 of the writ petition, it was, inter.....