SHUBHA KAUSHIK Vs. RAM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH counsel submit that as the paperbook is ready, the appeal be heard and disposed of finally. Accordingly, counsel heard.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants contended that the deceased was the Assistant Public Prosecutor (A. P. P.) Grade II and was working at Niwadi at the relevant time, who was drawing total emoluments of Rs. 1,290/- per month. After two months, he was to be promoted in Grade I of A. P. P. ; the total emoluments of the said post are Rs. 2,044/ -. The Tribunal while calculating the compensation and the dependency and by applying the multiplier of 16 illegally deducted 1/6th amount for lump sum payment, as it is well settled that when a multiplier is selected and applied, no payment can be deducted from lump sum, because multiplier takes care of deduction as well as of promotion, etc.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 contended that the dependency calculated is too excessive, as the deceased at the relevant time must be spending 1/3rd on himself. It was also submitted by him that the Claims Tribunal did not consider the deductions made by the employer towards the contribution of provident fund, etc.