F.A.O.NO. 3214 OF 1996 and 1 F.A.O.NO. 3101 OF 1996 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 3214 OF 1996 Date of decision:20th September, 2010 Smt. Gianwanti and others .......Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 3101 OF 1996 State of Haryana and others ........Appellants Versus Smt. Gianwati and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. Both the appeals are connected and address the claim for compensation for death of a government employee. The Tribunal had granted compensation of Rs. 11,10,200/- with 12% interest. The Tribunal had adopted a multiplier of 14 and the contention of the F.A.O.NO. 3214 OF 1996 and 2 F.A.O.NO. 3101 OF 1996 government is that multiplier of 13 shall only be applied. On behalf of the claimant it would be contended that the Tribunal however has not provided for prospect of increase of income he being a government employee. The determination of compensation has obtained reasonable certitude to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121. If the amount have to be re worked, on that basis it shall be as follows:- Pay of the deceased at the Time of accident Rs. 9,608/- +30% increase towards future prospectus keeping in view the age of the deceased Rs. 2,882.40/- Total Rs. 12,490.40/- 1/3rd amount deducted towards personal expenses Rs. 4,163.30/- Total Rs. 8,327.10/- Annual Dependency Rs. 8,327 x 12 = Rs. 99,924/- Multiplier Rs. 99,924 x 13 = Rs. 12,99,012/- Compensation towards Loss of Estate, Consortium Rs. 10,000/- Expenses incurred – Stay in Hospital (43 days) Medicine Etc.(already awarded) Rs. 35,000/- Total Rs. 13,44,012/- 2. The total amount of compensation would be Rs. 13,44,012/-. The amount in excess of what has already been awarded by the Tribunal shall carry interest at 6% from the date of the petition till the date of the payment. 3. Learned counsel for the State would contend that since the deceased died in harness, compassionate appointment had been given to his LR and hence the claimant is not entitled to F.A.O.NO. 3214 OF 1996 and 3 F.A.O.NO. 3101 OF 1996 compensation. It is not relevant consideration and held to be so in several judgments. To state but one from this Court itself the judgment in Amarjit Kaur versus State of Punjab (1999) 3 PLR 27 addresses this issue and holds that compassionate appointment to a member of this family is not relevant. This is so because, the salary that such a person receives is for services to the employer and not gratuitous. In Bhakra Beas Management Board vs. Kanta Aggarwal (2008) 11 SCC 366, the compassionate appointment and rent free accommodation were taken as relevant but they did not go as far to deny compensation on that score. The Court awarded Rs. 5 lacs as compensation. No details are however, available in this case as to what was the nature of compassionate appointment and what was the material benefit. I would not therefore, make any remission on the award with nil details of benefit. 4. The award of the Tribunal shall stand modified and the appeals filed by the insured and State. shall stand disposed of as above. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 20th September, 2010 Shivani Kaushik