Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1036 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 10. As noted above, in the present case, the Tribunal rejected the application of the Insurance Company for permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 11. In view of the rejection of the said application under Section 170 of the aforesaid Act, it is evident that the Appellant-Insurance Company can challenge the impugned award only on the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Such grounds are evidently in respect of Issue Nos.2 and 3. 12. As noted above, in regard to Issue Nos. 2 and 3, the Tribunal has recorded findings of fact that on the date of the accident, the vehicle in question was insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company, and the Driver of the vehicle in question was having a valid and effective licence. 13. Sri Saral Srivastava, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company has not been able to point out any error in the said findings recorded by the Tribunal. The Appellant-Insurance Company has failed to establish any infirmity or illegality in the impugned award on the grounds open to the Appellant-Insurance Company to raise in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 14. Sri Saral Srivastava, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company submits that the quantum of compensation as determined by the Tribunal is not correct as the Tribunal has erred in applying multiplier of 15 and has wrongly taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/-. 15. In our opinion, as the application of the Appellant-Insurance Company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 was rejected by the Tribunal, it is not open to the Appellant-Insurance Company to raise the question of quantum of compensation, awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned award. The pleas raised in this regard by Sri Saral Srivastava, learned counsel for the Appellant- Insurance Company cannot, therefore be considered. 16. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the appeal filed by the Appellant-Insurance Company lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 17. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. 18. The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the Appellant-Insurance Company while filing the present appeal, will be remitted to the Tribunal for being adjusted towards the amount payable under the impugned award. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.08.2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 63052 of 2007 Vinay Kumar Upadhyay …Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others …Respondents
3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State of U.P. and others 1037 Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ashok Tripathi Sri N.L. Srivastava Counsel for the Respondents: Sri D.K. Tripathi Sri P.C. Shukla S.C. U.P. Collection Peon Service Rule-2004- Rle-5-Substantive appointmentpetitioner was denied as not achieved 70% target of collection during four fasli-fasli means an year e.g. Ravi and Kharif-while petitioner has been awarded satisfactory collection in four fasal-moreover for lessure collection peon can not be held directly responsible-order quashed-direction for reconsideration issued. Held pare 13 Besides, the rule also required "satisfactory service" in the "last four Fasals" and not "Fasali". The distinction between a "Fasali" and "Fasal" has been considered by this Court in Mithlesh Kumar and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (2) ESC 1332 and this Court held as under: "This Court finds that though in the Rules one has to show his average recovery of at least 70% in the last four Fasals but the chart was submitted by Tahsildars not based on the Fasals but Fasalis i.e. the year which includes both the Fasals namely, Ravi and Kharif. The Selection Committee was also aware of this fact that it has to consider recovery performance of last four Fasals but thereafter it has clearly erred by not confining to consider performance with respect to recovery in last four Fasals but has taken the aforesaid chart to be correct without noticing the fact that the chart (Annexure-CA-2) was prepared on the basis of last four Fasalis and not on the basis of last four Fasals. One Fasali year has more than one Fasal. It is not the entire Fasali year but last four Fasals performance ought to have been considered by the Selection Committee. It has considered performance of the candidates beyond the period for which it is provided under Rule 5(1) of 1974 Rules." Case law discussed- 2008(2)ESC 1332, Special Appeal No. 294 of 2008, Manbodh Vs. State of U.P. and others connected with Special Appeal No. 398 of 2008. (Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.) 1. Heard Sri N.L. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 to 3. The respondent no. 4 was issued notice by registered post pursuant to this Court's order dated 13.10.2008. As per the office report the notice through registered post/AD sent on 17.10.2008 and the office report dated 13.07.2009 shows that notice has been received unserved with post office report "refused". In the circumstances the service of notice is deemed sufficient. Neither any counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 nor any one has put in appearance on his behalf. Respondents no. 1 to 3 have filed counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit. Petitioner has also filed rejoinder affidavit and, therefore, as requested and agreed by learned counsels for the parties, this writ petition has been heard and is being decided finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court. 2. By means of the present writ petition the order dated 03.10.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) has been assailed whereby the representation of petitioner against his supersession/non selection for substantive appointment on the post of
Page 1 and 2:
3 All] Smt. Katori Devi V. Nawab Si
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
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 and 54: 3 All] Jafar Khan V. State of U.P.
Page 55 and 56: 3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Page 61 and 62: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 63: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
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 107 and 108: 3 All] Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi V.St
Page 109 and 110: 3 All] Superintending Engineer and
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?