Rajpati Lal Vs. District Inspector of Schools and ors.

- 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......as a teacher will be added to his government service for calculating pension. learned counsel for the petitioner, in my opinion, has rightly submitted that on the same regulation a person who has earlier been in government service joins as a teacher should also be given same benefit as otherwise it would be arbitrary. in my opinion, this submission is correct whether one is first a teacher and later on, a government servant, or first government servant and later on a teacher. in my opinion, makes no difference. if the services in the capacity is to be added then it does not matter which comes first and which comes later. in my opinion, rational interpretation has to be given to the g.o. dated 16.9.1998 and i hold that services as government servant must also be added to the petitioner's service for calculating pension. learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that some other teachers were given same benefit vide order dated 7.7.84 annexure 25 to the petition and there is no reason to discriminate against the petitioner.4. the writ petition is allowed. the respondents are directed to re-calculate the petitioner's pension by adding his government service and his services as teacher. arrears shall be paid within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.