UNION OF INDIA Vs. BADRUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. S. Sinha, J. Heard SriLalji Sinha,learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri A. K. Shukla, learned standing Counsel representing the respon dent No. 2. Despite due service of the notice nobody appears for the respondent No. 1.

(2.) BY means of this petition under Ar ticle 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to challenge the legality of the order and judgment dated 29th Novem ber, 1980 passed by the respondent No. 2.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for, the petitioners contends that the respon dent No. 2 committed a manifest error of law in awarding the maximum compensa tion of Rs. 50,000 on the finding of total disability. He submits that there is no evidence on record to sustain the finding of total disability. Indeed, according to him the finding of total disability arrived at by the respondent No. 2 runs counter to the evidence on record in the shape of the report of the Medical Board, a copy whereof is before this Court as Annexure-B to the writ petition.