Committee of Management, Maharajganj Inter College and anr. Vs. Joint Director of Education, Gorakhpur Region and ors. - 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.arun tandon, j.1. heard sri surcsh chandra dwivedi advocate on behalf of the petitioner, sri i.p. srivastava advocate on behalf of respondent no. 7 and learned standing counsel on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. nobody has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 5.2. maharajganj educational society is a society duly registered under the societies registration act. the said society has established an institution in the name and style of maharajganj inter college, maharajganj. the elections of the office bearers of the society arc held in accordance with the registered byelaws of the society, while elections for constituting the committee of management of the institution arc held in accordance with the approved scheme of administration as framed under the provisions of the intermediate education act.3. the district inspector of schools, in alleged compliance of the order passed by this court dated 28th january, 2003 in writ petition no. 3556 of 2003 and in writ petition no. 5073 of 2003, recognized the contesting respondent sri gyanendra nath dwivedi as lawful manager of the institution vide order dated 19th february, 2003.4. the order of the district inspector of schools dated 19th february, 2003 was challenged by the present petitioner by means of writ petition no. 12187 of 2003. the said writ petition was allowed and the order of the district inspector of schools was quashed with the observation that since there was a dispute between two rival elections of the committee of management claiming a right to manage the institution, the district inspector of schools should have transmitted the dispute to the regional joint director of education for being placed before the regional level committee and the regional level committee in turn was directed to decide the matter after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned within the period specified in the judgment of this court dated 20.3.2003. reference-annexure-28 to the writ petition.5. the regional joint director of education, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, in compliance of the alleged order of this court dated 20.3.2003 has passed the impugned order dated 22.10.2003 recognizing the committee of management with sri gyanendra nath dwivedi as the manager. in pursuance of the said order of the regional joint director of education, the district inspector of schools, maharajganj vide order dated 28.10.2003 has attested the signature of sri gyanendra nath dwivedi as the manager of the institution of the purposes of operation of the bank account. the aforesaid two orders, passed by the regional joint director of education dated 22.10.2003 and that of the district inspector of schools dated 20.10.2003, have been impugned in the present writ petition.6. on behalf the petitioner various facts and grounds have been raised for the purposes of challenging the aforesaid orders. however, the writ petition can be disposed of only on one short ground namely that the regional joint director of education has no authority of law to pass the impugned order. therefore, it is not necessary to refer to other grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner.7. on behalf of the petitioner it is stated that this court while deciding the writ petition no. 12187 of 2003 vide judgment and order dated 20.3.2003 had directed that the dispute of the rival elections of committee of management should be placed before the regional level committee, of which joint director of education is only one of the member. the impugned order has not been passed by the regional level committee and as such the order passed by the joint director of education runs contrary to the directions issued by this court. in support of the said contention reliance has been placed upon paragraph 75 of the writ petition.8. a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the state authorities including joint director of education and reply to the allegations made in paragraph 75 of the writ petition has been tendered by means, of paragraph 37 of the counter-affidavit. in paragraph 37 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the regional joint director of education, being the head of the regional level committee, proceeded to decide the matter after issuing notices to the parties concerned and the said decision has been taken in pursuance of the orders of the regional level committee dated 18.10.2003. the orders of the regional level committee dated 18.10.2003 has not been brought on record.9. on behalf of the respondent no. 7. in the counter-affidavit, the contents of paragraph 75 have been replied by means of paragraph 59 and the decision of the regional joint director of education has been justified by alleging that since the charge of deputy director of education was being held at the relevant time by the joint director of education, gorakhpur, the decision has been acted upon by' the district inspector of schools by attesting the signatures of respondent no. 7, therefore, the order calls for no interference.10. in order to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, it would be relevant to refer to the directions issued by this court vide judgment and order dated 20.3.2003. the relevant portion whereof reads as follows:-'in view of the facts brought on the record it is clear that there is serious dispute between the parties regarding claim of committee of management and the district inspector of schools ought to have referred the matter to the joint director of education as directed by this court in its earlier judgment dated 28th january, 2003. no useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition pending and it is appropriate that district inspector of schools may forward the relevant papers to the regional committee for deciding the dispute of the parties. it is made clear that regional committee will pass order after hearing both the parties. the impugned order dated 19th february, 2003 of district inspector of schools is quashed. it is, however, observed that salary of the staff will be disbursed by single operation of the account till the dispute is decided by the regional committee, the regional committee will endeavour to decide the dispute expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.'11. it is also not in dispute that the regional level committee constituted under the government order dated 19th december, 2000 comprises of following three persons:(1) regional joint director of education;(2) deputy director of education; and(3) district inspector of schools.12. the regional joint director of education is the chairman of the said committee, commonly known as regional level committee. even if it is accepted that on the relevant date the charge of the deputy director of education was being held by the regional joint director of education, yet the decision was required to be taken by the committee of which at least joint director of education and the district inspector of schools should have been the members.13. from the allegations which have been made in paragraph 75 of the writ petition and reply submitted thereto in paragraph 59 of the counter-affidavit, as noticed above, this court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order has not been passed by the regional level committee and the decision impugned in the present writ petition is a decision of the regional joint director of education only. the respondents have tried to justify the said decision of the regional joint director of education only on the ground that he is the head of the regional level committee and therefore, competent to decide the dispute. the stand taken in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the regional joint director of education that he has decided the matter in pursuance of the decision of the regional level committee dated 18.10.2003 is not supported by any evidence on record,-no order of the regional level committee dated 18,10.2003 has been enclosed along with the counter-affidavit.14. from the contents of the paragraph 59 of the counter-affidavit, referred to above, it is further established that contrary to the directions issued by this court earlier, opportunity of hearing has not been afforded to the parties by the regional level committee. it is only joint director of education who has afforded opportunity of hearing to the parties. such a procedure cannot be said to be sufficient in compliance of the directions of this court, as contained in the order of this court dated 20.3.2003. .15. in such circumstances, since this court is of the affirm opinion that the impugned order has been passed by the regional joint director of education only, the said order cannot be said to be in compliance of the judgment passed by this court dated 20.3.2003, referred to above. the impugned order, as such, cannot be legally sustained, the impugned order dated 22.10.2003 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the regional level committee, of which the regional joint director of education is. chairman, to consider and decide the dispute afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned preferably within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted before the regional joint director of education, it is needless to point out that the regional level committee shall pass, a reasoned order after permitting exchange of documents between the parties.16. in view of the above, writ petition stands dismissed. no order as to cost,