Ajit Kumar Sen Vs. State of U.P. 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. - it is well settled that if there is a lis is the order, meaning thereby, if the order effects the right of a person, then such orders should be passed only after giving opportunity to the person effected.s.h.a. raza and bhagwan din, jj.1. the petitioner was initially appointed on 20.7.1970 in the department of chemistry as lecturer in ewing christian college, allahabad. the scale was revised from time to time and. on 7.1.1976 date 7.1.1976 petitioner's salary was revised to the scale of rs. 300-600/- and he was placed at serial no. 51 in the list of lecturers of the college. the scale was again revised w.e.f. 20.7.1983 from rs. 700-1600/- to the scale of rs. 1200-1300-60-1900/-. the petitioner was also granted selection grade on 9.9.1982. in the month of november, 1989 without any intimation to him and without calling for any show-cause notice or opportunity to the petitioner, an order was passed to the effect that the increment given to the petitioner on 14.7.1974 ought to have been on 6.11.1974 and the increment which ought to have been given in the month of july, 1989 was ordered to be given w.e.f. 6.11.1989. on the pay roll of the college, it was written that from the salary of the petitioner the additional payment made would be recovered from 14.7.1974.2. it was submitted that the petitioner was senior to sri r.l. gupta, and if deduction from his salary would be made the petitioner would get lesser emoluments, which is being paid to sri. r.l. gupta. no order was passed in that regard indicating the reasons for such deduction, but only on the pay roll of the college, it was stated that the deduction was made from the salary of the petitioner from 14.7.1974 and he was paid salary on the basis of increment given on 6.11.1989 instead of 14.7.1974. the dearness allowance was also increased in the amount of increment, w.e.f. 14.7.1974 which was fixed in the tenure of service of the petitioner, which about 15 years since the order has been passed by the respondent no. 2, the salary of the petitioner shall be reduced and the increment which was given in the petitioner from 14.7.1974 shall also be deducted. on 22.12.1989 a division bench of this court, ordered that till further orders of this court, opposite parties are restrained from deducting any amount from the salary of petitioner in respect of which increment was granted as far back in the year 1974.3. no counter-affidavit has been filed rebutting the allegations made by the petitioner, in spite of lapse of about 9 years. leaving no alternative for this court except to accept the averments made in the writ-petition.4. we are of the view that by means of the petitioners to deduct the amount already paid, would adversely affect the petitioner. it is well settled that if there is a lis is the order, meaning thereby, if the order effects the right of a person, then such orders should be passed only after giving opportunity to the person effected. in the present case there existed no material to indicate that petitioner was ever given an opportunity to show cause as to why deduction should not be made. in view of the aforesaid situation the impugned directions are violative principles of natural justice.5. in view of the said position, we direct that the amount already paid shall not be recovered from the salary of the petitioner on account of any shifting of the increment. however, it will be open for the respondents to pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation against the said directions.in view of the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of.