IN THE HON'BfcE HIGH eO®Rt;©K CHHATTISG^H AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) NO.^'^1^~OF 2010 /^p {>?• PETITIONERS :- /l. Shiv Kunwar, aged _aboiit 46 Apolicants £I;wa^/6 L^e Ramdhan ^Q.. Tikaram, aged about 28 years, s/o Late Ranidhan Binjhwar, -3. BadriKa Bai, aged about 29 years, D/o Late RamdhanBmjhwar, 4. Rewati Bai, aged ahout 26 yeai-s, D/p Late Ramdhan Binjhwar ^5. Tejkunwar, aged aboyt 23 years, D^o late Raindhan Binjhwar. M ^f^^^^^^^^^^T^^ Post ^CXaehata,. ^^C>W^^T^ Tahsil Kartala, DistrictKQrba(G.G.) VERSUS /-1. S&ri Munna Das, aged about 21 years, S/o Beenbandhu Das Bairagi, R/o Logai, Police Station Rajmahal, . District Sahebganj, Jharkliand Wriver) -2. Snit;s LaxmiraRi Shaha w/o Shri ©aurang Kumar Shaha, Nandankantia Madhyamgrani Nortlr '24 .Pargana West Bengal 743298. (owner) ' ; ^ :; 3. The New India Insurance Coiftpany Umited 140 D/E .B.T. Road, Kolkata' 700035 through Tlie ;:New India Instirance Comgany Iteiited Korba, District Korba (C.G.) (In®urer) :: . . WMT E^mTiONUl^E^J9iRTI©^ OQNSnTUr[ NiOmltNOIA- •• :"'::' ::-• :.if-:. RESPONDEa'tTS Non-applicants .-^•' HIGHCOLfRTOiFeHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR Sinale Behch: Hon'BleSlinJustiGePfashantKumarMishira WritPetition (2271 N0.6617of 2010 Petitioners ResDonclents versus Shiv Kunwarand others ShriMunna Dasand others Present: ::'': ;;'.':';. ,; : :,:. .: ;.' : • .: • . - Shri Deepak KumarSingh, eounselforthepetitjoners. Writ Petition uhderArtiGle227 ofthe Constitution of India ORAL ORDER (Passecjon 8th February, 20-1 T) •Heard^madmissioit.i:':.;:.l'''::i,.,' 2. : The^p§tjti©rieri,'^l'i(3^ireg®la^ before the Motor Aceidents Claims TritSunal, K(3i-t:)a, ;liaye cRallenged the orders passed^by the Claims Tribunal on 20-7-20;10 (Annexure P-6) and 30-9-2Q10 (Ahnexure P-7) rejecting thejr prayer under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CodeofCiyil Procedyre, 1908 (hencefOrth 'the Code') for amendrnent in the claim petition to plead that on aceountofapplicationoftheV!thPay-ScaleafterrevisionQtpay,the deceasedwasentitledtoreceiVesalaryonthescaleadmissibleafter revision of pay. Thus, according tb the Qlaimants, they are entitled fbrmorecompensationand,tlierefore,tMeamendmentisnecessary. 3. Even if pleadingwith regard tofixation ofpay of thedeceased under theyith Pay-ScateJs noton recQrd, Ihejurisdietion available with the Claims ^ribunalTorjcletermining jyst compensation bemg l^rger, it is directed tliat the^ pefitioners shall be entitled trlead ;1^'';.1:;-::'.:':'--^ evidence with regard to the appljcability and admissibility of the yith Pay-Scale to the deCeased sit the time of his death because even if the death has taken place when the pay was not actually revised, the application of revised pay-scalemay happen by notional fixation of pay if such orders were passed after hjs death. Judicial notice can betakenthatin the presentcase, thedeath of the deceased has taken place on 23-10-2007, whereas the Vlth Pay-Scale has been made appljcable with regard to allGovernment Servants with effect from 1-1-2006. . 4. Inorder to arrive at just compensation for which the claimants/dependents/petitioners are entitled, the petitioners are permitted tp lead evidence by examinjhg witnesses to prove salary of the deceased aspertheVltli Pay-Scale. > 5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. 6. Since the Retition is diSposed of atthe admission stage, the respondents shall be at liberty to make a prayer for modification/review dfthis order on permissible grounds. Gopal ns£^^sbra ^asbantsr_^ Bl nffi