Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1026 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 Principal of the Institution. The Competent Appointing Authority has been defined in Group-D Employees Service Rules, 1985 and thereafter the said rules for other matters, makes provision under Rules 31, that for such matters which are not specifically covered under the rules, the rules pertaining to government servants shall apply. 12. In view of the aforesaid and the undisputed position with regard to applicability of the rules, the competent authority being the Principal, the order of cancellation, termination or otherwise could have only been passed by the Principal of the institution. The State Government does not have any power either defined under the aforesaid Rules, 1985 or even as a residuary power to determine status of employment of a Class-IV employee of a Government Girls Degree College. 13. In view of this, the directions issued by the State Government and the direction issued by the Director of Education at the best can be administrative recommendations. The proceedings are to be initiated by the Competent Authority. Keeping in view Rule 31 referred to herein above if the appointment of the petitioner was illegal or invalid, the cancellation has to be initiated by the Principal of the Institution and it is the Principal who has to issue a notice to the petitioner and to cancel his appointment. It is admitted in the counter affidavit that the impugned orders have emanated without there being any notice or opportunity to the petitioner and the Principal has, as a matter of fact surrendered his jurisdiction in favour of State Government as well as Director of Education. This in the opinion of the Court is impermissible under law. 14. Accordingly, the orders impugned are unsustainable and the same are quashed. The impugned orders dated 27th September, 2007 and 19th October, 2007 are set aside with the direction to the respondent No. 3 to offer an opportunity to the petitioner and thereafter proceed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. 15. It is made clear that the payment of salary shall be subject to any order being passed by the Principal. 16. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands allowed. No order is passed as to costs. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.10.2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE SATYA POOT MEHROTRA, J. THE HON’BLE RAJESH CHANDRA, J. First Appeal From Order No. 2935 of 2009 New India Assurance Company Ltd. …Defendant/Appellant Versus Mohd. Yameen & another …Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Dhananjay Awasthi Counsel for the Respondents: Motor Vehicle Act, 1988-Section 149- Third party insurance-duty of insever to satisfy the award-Tribunal directed the
3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Mohd. Yameen and others 1027 insurance Company to pay the entire amount of award-recover the same from vehicle owner-held perfectly justifiedappeal by insurance company dismissed. Held: Para 19 In view of the above, it is evident that the Tribunal did not commit any illegality in directing the Insurance Company/ Appellant to make deposit of the amount of compensation and recover the same from the insured person i.e. the owner of the vehicle in question - respondent no.3 herein. Case law discussed: AIR 1998 SC 588, 2004(3) SCC 297 : 2004 (1) T.A.C. 321 : AIR 2004 SC 1531, 2008(1) T.A.C. 803 (S.C.), (2007) 3 S.C.C. 700 : 2007 (2) T.A.C. 398, (2007) 5 S.C.C. 428: 2007 (2) T.A.C. 417. (Delivered by Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra, J.) 1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 22.5.2009 whereby Rs. 1,69,940/- with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded as compensation to the claimantsrespondents on account of the death of Wasim in an accident which took place on 23.4.2005 at around 4.00 a.m. in the morning wherein Canter No. UP23B- 2043 collided with a Truck. 2. The Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal framed five issues. 3. Issue No.1 was in regard to the factum of accident having taken place on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the aforesaid vehicle, namely, Canter No. UP23B-2043. The Tribunal decided the said Issue in the affirmative. 4. Issue No.2 was as to whether the vehicle in question was insured with the Insurance Company/ Appellant and as to whether the driver of the vehicle was having a valid and effective Driving License on the date of accident. The Tribunal held that the vehicle in question was insured with the Insurance Company/ Appellant on the date of the accident. However, it was held that the driver of the vehicle in question was not having valid and effective Driving License on the date of accident. 5. Issue No. 3 was as to whether the Claim Petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The said Issue was decided against the opposite parties in the Claim Petition. 6. Issue No.4 was as to whether the deceased was travelling in the vehicle in question as gratituous passenger in an unauthorized manner which was violative of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The Tribunal decided the said Issue in the affirmative in favour of the Insurance Company/ Appellant. It was held that the vehicle in question was being used for commercial purposes, and the same was against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 7. Issue No.5 was as to whether the claimants-respondents were entitled to get compensation as against the opposite parties in the Claim Petition jointly or separately. It was held by the Tribunal that the claimants/ respondents were entitled for compensation amounting to Rs.1,69,940/- with interest @ 6%. However, the compensation was not payable by the Insurance Company/ Appellant but was payable by Mahmood Hasan, owner of the vehicle in questionrespondent no.3 herein.
Page 1 and 2:
3 All] Smt. Katori Devi V. Nawab Si
Page 3 and 4: 3 All] Smt. Katori Devi V. Nawab Si
Page 5 and 6: 3 All] Smt. Katori Devi V. Nawab Si
Page 7 and 8: 3 All] Kailash Babu Gupta V. State
Page 9 and 10: 3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 11 and 12: 3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 13 and 14: 3 All] Smt. Sadhana Singh V. State
Page 21 and 22: 3 All] C/M, Lok Bharti Inter Colleg
Page 23 and 24: 3 All] Krishan Kumar V. State of U.
Page 25 and 26: 3 All] Smt. Raman Pandey and others
Page 27 and 28: 3 All] Smt. Shailendra Rai V. State
Page 39 and 40: 3 All] Rishi Pal Singh V. State of
Page 45 and 46: 3 All] Naik R.K. Mahapatra V. Chief
Page 53: 3 All] Jafar Khan V. State of U.P.
Page 57 and 58: 3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Page 59 and 60: 3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Page 61 and 62: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 63 and 64: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 65 and 66: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 67 and 68: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 69 and 70: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 71 and 72: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 73 and 74: 3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
Page 99 and 100: 3 All] Matloob Gaur V.State of U.P.
Page 105 and 106:
3 All] Matloob Gaur V.State of U.P.
Page 107 and 108:
3 All] Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi V.St
Page 109 and 110:
3 All] Superintending Engineer and
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
3 All] Dr. R.C. Agrawal and another
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
show all

Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?