USHA M. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from the judgment of learned Single Judge in W.P(C). No.32980 of 2017. Appellants are the writ petitioners. In the said writ petition, the following relief was sought:

(2.) We heard the counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It is an accepted factual position that the amendment to the Rules enhancing the compensation came into force only with effect from 1.1.2017. In so far as the claim prosecuted by the appellants is concerned, the O.A. was filed in 2013 and was allowed on 28.11.2014 whereby the then permissible maximum compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. Obviously therefore, the amendment which came into effect from 1.1.2017 did not apply to the case in question. However, this hurdle is sought to be overcame by the counsel by relying on Ext.P3, the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.30818 of 2013, which was filed by the appellants. In the writ petition, they sought a declaration that compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- then fixed was meager and sought an enhancement thereof. It was during the pendency of that writ petition the rules were amended enhancing the compensation to Rs.8,00,000/-. When the writ petition came up for consideration before this Court on 20.3.2017, counsel for the appellants submitted that in view of the amendment, no further orders are necessary and therefore, sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to claim the benefit of the amended Rules. It is accordingly the writ petition was disposed of clarifying that the appellants would be entitled to seek the benefit of the amendment to the rules before the Tribunal. Accordingly, a claim was made, which was negatived by Ext.P5 order on the ground that the amended rules having come into force only with effect from 1.1.2017, the claim of the appellants was untenable. Before us also, this very plea relying on Ext.P3 was reiterated. A reading of the judgment would show that all that this Court clarified was that the appellants would be entitled to claim the benefit of the amended rules. In other words, what was stated was that it was open to the appellants to claim the benefit of the amended Rules and if such a claim was made, the same would be examined in the light of the rules aforesaid. Evidently, such a claim was made, the claim was examined and the claim having been found to be untenable had been rejected. This view taken in Ext.P5 is perfectly in consonance with the amended rules which came into force on 1.1.2017. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in upholding Ext.P5 order and dismissing the writ petition.