Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Bijay Kumar Rai and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Bijay Kumar Rai and ors. vs State of Bihar and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Jan 12, 2004
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/515033

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Jharkhand High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CWJC No. 3446 of 1997 (R)
Subject
Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A.No.59/1988] Section 166; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, A.K. Gohil & S. Samvatsar, JJ] Application for compensation for personal injury Death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons Held, Claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. Claim will not survive to ...

Key legal issue
Service
Acts & sections
Service Law; Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bijay Kumar Rai and ors.

Advocate M.B. Lal, Adv.

Respondent

State of Bihar and ors.

Advocate Rita Kumari, JC to GP II

Legal References

Acts
Service Law; Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In
[2004(1)JCR528(Jhr)]

Excerpt

- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant......have prayed for regular pay scale with effect from 31.12.1988 i.e. the date of their initial appointment pursuant to the letter as contained in annexure 4, dated 12.10.1982 and also on the basis of annexure 5 i.e. wireless message dated 14.4.1987.2. several other writ applications were filed before this court on similar facts with similar prayer and various orders were passed in those writ applications which have been annexed as annexures 6, 7 and 8 to this writ application. however, it appears that annexure 8 has been passed in mjc no. 417 of 1995 (r) arising out of similar writ petition.3. it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner has filed representation i.e. annexure 10 on 20.8.1997 to the district education officer, giridih to that effect but no action in this regard has been taken.4. no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. considering the nature of the prayer and also the averments made in this writ application, this application is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the concerned competent authority along with a copy of this order within a period of three weeks from today giving details of his claim. if such representation is filed by the petitioner within the time specified, the concerned competent authority shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after considering the fact that similarly situated teachers were granted relief pursuant to the letter of the state government dated 10.2.1982 and the wireless message dated 14.12.1987 and if it is found that the petitioner is also entitled to the same benefit pursuant to annexure 4 and 5 to the writ application, the concerned authority shall pass appropriate order within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing such representation.5. with this above observation/direction this application stands disposed of.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Amareshwar Sahay, J.

1. The petitioner No. 1 is a clerk and the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are peons appointed by the Secretary, Project Girls High School, Deori have prayed for regular pay scale with effect from 31.12.1988 i.e. the date of their initial appointment pursuant to the letter as contained in Annexure 4, dated 12.10.1982 and also on the basis of Annexure 5 i.e. wireless message dated 14.4.1987.

2. Several other writ applications were filed before this Court on similar facts with similar prayer and various orders were passed in those writ applications which have been annexed as Annexures 6, 7 and 8 to this writ application. However, it appears that Annexure 8 has been passed in MJC No. 417 of 1995 (R) arising out of similar writ petition.

3. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner has filed representation i.e. Annexure 10 on 20.8.1997 to the District Education Officer, Giridih to that effect but no action in this regard has been taken.

4. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Considering the nature of the prayer and also the averments made in this writ application, this application is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the concerned competent authority along with a copy of this order within a period of three weeks from today giving details of his claim. If such representation is filed by the petitioner within the time specified, the concerned competent authority shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after considering the fact that similarly situated teachers were granted relief pursuant to the letter of the State Government dated 10.2.1982 and the wireless message dated 14.12.1987 and if it is found that the petitioner is also entitled to the same benefit pursuant to Annexure 4 and 5 to the writ application, the concerned authority shall pass appropriate order within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing such representation.

5. With this above observation/direction this application stands disposed of.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial