SMT. ASHA PRALHAD KARLE Vs. SARPANCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 6.1.2014 in Application (WC) No.64 of 2009, the original claimants have preferred this appeal.

(2.) Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are as follows :

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants submits that duty list is placed on record before the Commissioner and the same is marked at Exh.U-13. Besides daily work of Gram Panchayat, as per serial No.5 of the duty list, deceased Pralhad was supposed to carry out work as per directions given to him by the Sarpanch, Upsarpanch, Gram Panchayat Members and also the Gramsevak. Respondents No.1 and 2, who are the Sarpanch and Upsarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat, have not filed their written statement and they have not contested the Application (WC) as such. It is also not denied by them by filing written statement that, no such instructions were given to deceased Pralhad to replace bulbs of the street lights. Undisputedly, street lights in the village are maintained by the Gram Panchayat. So far as muster roll is concerned, on 16.2.2009 and 17.2.2009, signature of the deceased is absent. By taking undue advantage of the same, respondent No.3 made a statement before the Commissioner that deceased Pralhad was absent on duty on the date of accident. Deceased Pralhad was serving as a peon and it is usually a practice in Gram Panchayat that, for a person like deceased Pralhad, who was working as a peon, to sign the muster roll as and when convenient. The muster rolls are not therefore regularly maintained and placed in a conspicuous part of the office of Gram Panchayat. It is not a corporate office and it is simply a Gram Panchayat office and signing or not signing on the muster roll is not of much importance. Deceased Pralhad was on duty and his wife-claimant No.1 has deposed to that effect.