Jaipal Mahli and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. - Court Judgment

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......counter affidavit has specifically stated that no appointment has been made thereafter except for compassionate appointment and as and when fresh appointment will be made the case of the petitioners will be considered in accordance with law.even otherwise, the present petition is not maintainable since the direction issued by this hon'ble court in c.w.j.c. no. 166/94 (r) dated 2.3.1994 was only to consider the case of the petitioners along with other eligible candidates in accordance with law as and when the vacancies are directed to the filled up.considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no mandamus can lie and accordingly this writ . petition is dismissed.we do not find any error in the impugned judgment. this appeal is dismissed.

Judgment:

ORDER

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 5.01.2009 which reads as under:

The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding upon the respondents to forthwith appoint the petitioners in Class-IV post within the district of Gumla in pursuant to the direction of Hon'ble Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 166 of 1994 (R) whereby and whereunder this Hon'ble Court has been pleased to direct the respondent No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla to consider the case of the petitioners also along with the eligible candidates in accordance with law when the vacancies are decided to be filled up, the respondents have advertised the post to make appointment on the post of Class-IV but without considering the case of the petitioners.

The counsel for the respondents in their counter affidavit has specifically stated that no appointment has been made thereafter except for compassionate appointment and as and when fresh appointment will be made the case of the petitioners will be considered in accordance with law.

Even otherwise, the present petition is not maintainable since the direction issued by this Hon'ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 166/94 (R) dated 2.3.1994 was only to consider the case of the petitioners along with other eligible candidates in accordance with law as and when the vacancies are directed to the filled up.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no mandamus can lie and accordingly this writ . petition is dismissed.

We do not find any error in the impugned judgment. This appeal is dismissed.