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.

Binda Devi Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board Through Its Chairman and ors.

Binda Devi vs Jharkhand State Electricity Board Through Its Chairman and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Apr 28, 2004
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/517750

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
WP (C) No. 2265 of 2004
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

Binda Devi

Advocate A.K. Jha, Adv. for the BSEB; Sunil Kumar Sinha, Adv.

Respondent

Jharkhand State Electricity Board Through Its Chairman and ors.

Advocate Ajit Kumar,; D.K. Pathak and; Chetan Krishna Nagesh,

Legal References

Acts
Service Law; Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In
[2004(3)JCR182(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.orderamareshwar sahay, j.1. heard the parties.2. the prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for direction to the respondent's to make payment of the amount of leave encashment and gratuity, to be calculated on the basis of revised pay scale, which came into effect from 1.1.1996. further prayer is for a direction to pay and also to fix the family pension on the revised scale of pay.3. it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that several representations have been filed by the petitioner to make payment of arrears but no, payment has been made till date.4. the learned counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner may be paid family pension in revised scale of pay but so far the arrears are concerned the board is not in a position to pay the said amount at present because of non-division of the assets of the two boards, i.e., jseb and bseb.5. in the view of the matter, this application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass an appropriate order for payment of family pension to the petitioner in the revised scale of pay within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. with regard to arrears, the respondents are directed to take a decision in the matter within a period of six months and then to pass an appropriate order in that regard.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Amareshwar Sahay, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for direction to the respondent's to make payment of the amount of leave encashment and gratuity, to be calculated on the basis of revised pay scale, which came into effect from 1.1.1996. Further prayer is for a direction to pay and also to fix the family pension on the revised scale of pay.

3. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that several representations have been filed by the petitioner to make payment of arrears but no, payment has been made till date.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner may be paid family pension in revised scale of pay but so far the arrears are concerned the Board is not in a position to pay the said amount at present because of non-division of the assets of the two Boards, i.e., JSEB and BSEB.

5. In the view of the matter, this application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass an appropriate order for payment of family pension to the petitioner in the revised scale of pay within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With regard to arrears, the respondents are directed to take a decision in the matter within a period of six months and then to pass an appropriate order in that regard.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial