Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Vs. Smt. Dhoopa Devi and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- 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.c.k. prasad, c.j. and a.p. sahi, j.1. respondent no. 1-appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 12.5.2009 passed by a learned single judge in civil misc. writ petition no. 30 of 1996, has preferred this appeal under rule 5 chapter viii of the allahabad high court rules, 1952.2. short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 was engaged as maharajin/sevika in bal niketan balika junior high school, jajmau colony, kanpur nagar. the appointment was made in pursuance of a resolution of the committee of management of the said institution. while appointing respondent no. 1, it was resolved to seek approval of the basic education officer, kanpur nagar. the approval was granted by the basic education officer in may, 1994. thereafter, by order dated 22nd november, 1995, the basic education officer cancelled the appointment inter alia on the ground that earlier approval for appointment was taken on misrepresentation of facts and her appointment was absolutely illegal.3. respondent no. 1 challenged the aforesaid order in the writ petition which has given rise to the present appeal. the learned single judge allowed the writ petition and while doing so, the learned single judge observed as follows:a perusal of the interim order reveals that no opportunity of hearing was afforded before issuing the order of cancellation. she was appointed against a clear, permanent vacancy and after obtaining the approval of then basic shiksha adhikari in the year 1994. the approval was granted by the basic shiksha adhikari and a government servant have continued for a sufficiently long period, her appointment could not be suddenly cancelled without affording any opportunity of hearing in violation of the principles of natural justice. accordingly, the order appears to be ex-fade punitive and it has resulted in removal and dismissal of the petitioner and recovering salary from petty employee of a junior high school and that too after rendering services in the college appears to be too harsh and is not sustainable. accordingly, the order dated 22.11.1995 is quashed. the petitioner is already in service. consequences shall follow. the writ petition is allowed.4. mr. k. shahi appears on behalf of the appellant. respondent no. 1 is represented by mr. shri kant shukla.5. it is common ground that the matter of appointment on the post in question is governed by the uttar pradesh recognised basic schools (junior high school)(recruitment and condition of service of ministerial staff and group 'd' employees) rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the rules). rule 13 of the said rules inter alia provides for advertisement of the vacancy at least in one newspaper having wide circulation in the locality. rule 14 thereof further provides for constitution of a selection committee and rule 15 thereof provides procedure for selection.6. there is nothing on record to show that the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 was appointed in accordance with the said rules. neither the advertisement nor the averments regarding constitution of the selection committee has at all been pleaded. in absence thereof the appointment of respondent no. 1 was absolutely illegal and once it is held so, nothing prevented the basic education officer to rescind the same after it had come to his notice. the contention that the order of cancellation was in violation of principles of natural justice does not hold water as even otherwise no material has been brought forth before us to demonstrate that the appointment was valid and in accordance with the rules applicable.7. we are of the opinion that the learned single judge without taking into account the aforesaid aspect of the matter ought not to have interfered with the order rescinding the appointment of respondent no. 1.8. in the result, the appeal is allowed. impugned order of the learned single judge is set aside and the writ petition stands dismissed. no order as to cost.