H H!?TTTTTr TT ..._i. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE (CHHATTISGARHS W.P. No. 2AS.3 /2QQ3 PETITQNER UDAY NATH S/o Bandhu Gond Aged about 44 yearg, R/o Bandhvapara, Tah. & Dist. Bilaspur RESPONDENTS :1) 2) 3) 4) Vs STATE OF C.G. Through • Secretary, PublicWorksDeptt., DK Bhavan, Raipur (CG). Executive Engineer, Public Works Deptt. ^ •' (Electrical & Mech. Divrff Bilaspur. Executive Engineer (Buildings & Road) Divn. No.1, Bilaspur. Sub-Divisiona] Officer, Sub-Division no.2, PublicWorksDeptt., Divn. no.1, Bilaspur. .^ ./^ /y. A1?-' ./ /y ^Lt*' ^••- ^^^/" ^^t;'^ •s^ ^'N-''- ^ .^/ &<- PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^i^s^ /rff'°s^ k^ \^J ""¥!StnE»?^ ^ V"" PETITIONER RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH :_B!LASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 2353 OF 2003 Uday Nath Versus State of C.G. & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.umesh Bajaj, Government Advocatejor the State/ respondents. ORDER (Passed on this 09th day of December, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the legality and validity of the communication dated 22.02.2001 (Annexure P-1) from the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, E & M. Division, Bilaspur to Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Ma./Sa.), Division No.1, Bilaspur, whereunder, it was directed that 50% of the total amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "M.A.C.T.") and District Judge, Bilaspur, in its award dated 05.05.2000 (Annexure P-3), passed in M.A.C.C. No.137/98 should be recovered from the petitioner by deducting a sum of Rs.1,225/- as first installment and remaining 89 installments at the rate of Rs.1,060/- per month from the salary of the petitioner. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner, while driving the Truck bearing CPZ- 7329, met with an accident on 13.05.1997, which resulted into death of one Jhaduram. Smt. Kaushalya Bai, widow of Jhaduram filed a Motor Accident Claim Case being M.A.C.C. No. 137/98 before the M.A.C.T. & District Judge Bilaspur, wherein, the petitioner was also a party respondent. 3. The M.A.C.T. awarded a sum of Rs. 1,55,000/- to be paid severally and jointly by the petitioner and the Executive Engineer, Public Works - Department, E & M Section, Bilaspur. It is not clear asto whether, this order was modified by the superior Court or not. Thus, the impugned communication was in implementation of the award passed by the M.A.C.T. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a master - servant relationship and, as such, the petitioner, being a servant .<,"^-^ II,,,, r 1 '•^SiS f9 6. 2 •J Ashok was not liable to make the payment, as the petitioner was discharging»his official functions while driving the concerned vehicle, is rejected on the simple ground that when the M.A.C.T. was considering grant of compensation, the issue ought to have been raised before the M.A.C.T. to consider apportionment ofthe impugned award. The award passed by the Tribunal has b'ecome final without there being any challenge before the superior Court. On the above-stated grounds, the petitioner is attempting to raise this issue, to set aside a judicial order passed by the M.A.C.T., in this writ petition without challenging the legality and validity of the award dated 05.05.2000. Thus, it is impermissible to question the validity of the communication, which is in compliance of the award passed by the M.A.C.T. No other ground is available for the petitioner at this stage, when the award has become final and award has not been questioned before anyjudicial forum. Thus, for the reasons stated hereinabove, there is no merit in this case and the petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K; Agnihotri Judge