Patna High Court - Orders
Pramod Narain Tiwari & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 27 July, 2017
Author: Anil Kumar Upadhyay
Bench: Chief Justice, Anil Kumar Upadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5631 of 1999
======================================================
1. Pramod Narain Tiwari, son of Shri Shambhunath Tiwari, Draupadi Bhawan,
Tilha Mahabir Asthan, Gaya, P.S. & District- Gaya
2. Binod Kumar Sinha, son of Shri Bindeshwari Prasad Sinha, Mohalla Naya
Sarak, Jamunajee Ka Math, Chowk Patna City, District- Patna
3. Kanhaya Prasad Rai, son of Shri Ram Nath Rai, Home Guard Office,
District- Gaya
4. Ajay Kumar, son of Shri Awadhesh Kumar, resident of Mohalla- Mogalpur
Lala Toli, Police Station - Khajekala, District- Patna
5. Shivendra Kumar Singh, son of Shri Padum Narayan Singh, resident of
village- Nazra, Police Station- Manigachhi, District- Darbhanga (since dead)
6. Kaushal Kishore Singh, son of Shri Jai Ram Singh, resident of Ranipur,
Police Station- Khajekalan, Patna City, District- Patna
7. Anil Kumar Sinha, son of Late Yadunath Prasad, resident of Mohalla- North
Mandiri, Police Station-Kotwali, Town and District- Patna
8. Gunanand Jha, son of Shri Batchi Jha, resident of Home Guard
Headquarters Campus, Chhajjubagh, Police Station Kotwali, Town and
District- Patna
9. Madan Prasad, son of Shri Radha Mohan Yadav, resident of Buxi Mohalla
(Chauhatta) Police Station Khajekalan, Patna City, District- Patna (since
dead)
10. Ekramul Haque, son of Shri Badrul Haque, at and P.O. Hamzapur Sherghati,
Police Station Sherghati, District- Gaya
11. Khurshed Alam, son of Shri Ashfaque Alam, resident of Mohalla-Dani,
Police Station- Pindarucha, District- Darbhanga
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Department of Home, Old
Secretariat, Patna
2. The Special Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar,
Old Secretariat, Patna
3. The Additional Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of
Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna
4. The Deputy Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar,
Old Secretariat, Patna
5. The Director General, Personnel Home Police Department, Government of
Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna
6. The Commandant General, Bihar Home Guard, Chhajjubagh, Patna
7. The Deputy Commandant General, Home Guard, Chhajjubagh, Patna
8. The Commandant "A", Headquarter, Bihar Home Guard, Chhajjubagh,
Patna
9. The Commandant "B" Headquarter, Bihar Home Guard, Chhajjubagh, Patna
10. The District Commandant, Home Guard, Hazaribgh
11. The District Commandant, Home Guard,Dhanbad
12. The District Commandant, Home Guard, Ranchi
13. The District Commandant, Home Guard,Jehanabad
14. The District Commandant, Home Guard, Bhojpur
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
Patna High Court CWJC No.5631 of 1999 (11) dt.27-07-2017
2/20
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chittranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Kripa Nand Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. S.D.Yadav, AAG-9
Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, AC to AAG-9
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
And
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY)
11 27-07-2017Right to Information Act heralded a new era of transparency and accountability in the working of public authority. The information under the Right to Information Act has exposed falsehood of many authorities in the decision making process. It is the information obtained by the petitioners of this case under the Right to Information Act on 20th of May, 2010 that proved to be a boon for these petitioners and they could be able to substantiate before the Division Bench hearing Civil Review No. 226 of 2012, that the counter affidavit filed in this case was result of misrepresentation and as such there was complete failure of justice. The Division Bench on consideration of the noting of file in connection with relaxation of the rigorous physical test, allowed the review petition vide judgment and order dated 28.7.2014 passed in Civil Review No. 226 of 2012 and restored CWJC No. 5631 of 1999 to its original file for disposal. The relevant part of the order dated 28.7.2014 is axiomatic and for ready reference the Patna High Court CWJC No.5631 of 1999 (11) dt.27-07-2017 3/20 same is reproduced as follows:-
"Paragraph-12 of the impugned judgment is self eloquent of the opinion formed by the writ court that the termination order of the petitioners did not warrant interference because the relaxation in physical test was never approved by the cabinet. The opinion expressed by the Bench is on the statement of the State counsel recorded in paragraph-5 of the judgment that no approval was obtained from the council of Ministers. It is in this backdrop that the writ court taking note of the judgment passed in CWJC No. 1332 of 1990 held that any relaxation in the physical test could be made only after obtaining approval of the council of Ministers but no such approval was obtained in the present case. Such is also the observation of the bench in paragraphs-7, 8 and 10 of the judgment. It is thus manifest that the writ court had based its opinion on the stand taken by the State that there was no cabinet approval to the relaxation of physical test in case of the petitioners as required in terms of the judgment and order passed in CWJC No. 1332 of 1990 and since the appointments had been provided to the petitioners in complete disregard of this requirement hence the termination did not warrant interference.
The writ court was considering the termination of the petitioners in the backdrop of the pleadings and Patna High Court CWJC No.5631 of 1999 (11) dt.27-07-2017 4/20 documents as available before the writ court. In view of the stand taken by the respondents regarding absence of approval by the cabinet with nothing to challenge such submission, obviously there could not be any other conclusion. But the petitioners by this review petition have tried to shift this opinion and their prayer is exclusively founded on the information derived under the Right to Information Act and placed at Annexure-1 to the review application. The file noting present at Annexure-1 of the review application reflects that following the appointment of these petitioners, there were other claimants to such relaxation and the respondents while admitting that the appointment of the petitioners had been made after obtaining approval of the Government on relaxation in physical test standards, in the light of the judgment and order passed in CWJC No. 1332 of 1990, sought opinion from the learned Advocate General as to whether similar relaxation could be granted to the others also. It is in the light of the opinion received from the Advocate General that the department declined relaxation in the physical test as granted to the petitioners to the other claimants. The file noting as appearing at page 23 and 24 of the review petition are very relevant to the issue raised in this application and paragraph 3 thereof reads as follows:
"3. egkf/koDrk ds ijke'kZ ds fpfUgr va'k "d" ls Li'V gS fd Patna High Court CWJC No.5631 of 1999 (11) dt.27-07-2017 5/20 fu;qfDr ds lEcU/k esa ljdkj dks fdlh izdkj dh f'kfFkyrk cjrus dh vko';drk ugha gSA fiNys ekeys esa ljdkj n~okjk 'kkjhfjd tkWap esa f'kfFkyrk cjrrsa gq, (vLi'V) vo'; fn;k x;k Fkk fdUrq ;g vko';d ugh gS (vLi'V) gh fd;k tk,A lh0MCyw0ts0lh0 1332 esa U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dk vuqikyu ;Fkkle; vR;Ur lkgkuqHkwfriwoZd fopkj fd;k x;k vkSj 13 mEehnokjksa ds lEcU/k esa ''kkjhfjd tkWap es f'kfFkyrk cjrus dk ljdkj n~okjk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fdUrq vc brus yksx U;k;ky; esa igqWap x, gSa rks lgkuqHkwfriwoZd fu.kZ; ysuk vlaHko gks x;k gSA"
(Emphasis supplied) The said noting clearly demonstrates that the file was being processed for obtaining approval as regarding relaxation of some other persons who were claiming the same benefit of relaxation in physical test as allowed to these petitioners and after seeking opinion from the Advocate General it was decided that the relaxation granted by the State Government to the petitioners cannot be extended to the others and who would have to undergo the physical test. The decision also has endorsement of Hon'ble the Chief Minister.
Whereas the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Commandant, Bihar Home Guard is evasive on this aspect, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State respondents merely states that the file notings do not disclose correct facts and that the approval was being sought for the other claimants and was granted in the year 1993 i.e. after the issuance of the Patna High Court CWJC No.5631 of 1999 (11) dt.27-07-2017 6/20 appointment orders. Clearly the State has also evaded to answer the issue raised by the petitioners in the light of the file notings present at Annexure-1 that if the State Government had already accorded approval to the relaxation of the physical test in the case of the petitioners and they had also decided not to extend the same relaxation in case of others, why an incorrect statement was made before the writ court regarding absence of approval. Once the State Government has approved the relaxation of physical test, it did not lie in the mouth of the respondents to make misleading statement before the writ court that the appointments cannot be upheld for want of cabinet approval. Although Mr. Sinha has raised other grounds as well during the course of submission but this Court is satisfied that on this ground alone the judgment and order passed in CWJC No. 5631 of 1999 dated 08.01.2008 requires review for it is founded on misleading statement of the respondents who also are guilty of suppressing material facts from the court."
In the aforesaid backdrop of the facts and circumstances, the present writ application has been placed for fresh hearing.
We have heard the parties at length. The instant writ application has chequered history. Initially 11 writ petitioners have Patna High Court CWJC No.5631 of 1999 (11) dt.27-07-2017 7/20 filed the writ petition for quashing of the letter No. 492/C dated 8.5.1999 whereby the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Home (Special) Department asked the Additional Director General cum Inspector General, Bihar Home Guard to take step for termination of all the petitioners appointed on the post of Havildar Clerk purportedly under the orders passed in CWJC No. 1332/1990 as in their case the State Government has not taken any decision to relax physical standard test in the matter of their appointment. During the pendency of the said writ application I.A. No. 3459 of 2000 was filed by the petitioners for amendment of the writ application and for quashing of the letter no. M/HG 3805/98 (Khand) - 397 dated 10.5.2000 (Annexure-16) and the order dated 12.5.2000 contained in memo no. 1609 whereby the services of the petitioners have been terminated with immediate effect.
The instant case is telling a tale of compulsive litigation. Petitioners were previously working as Home Guard, they applied in response to the advertisement in daily newspaper Aaj dated 13th September, 1981 for appointment as Havildar Clerk. They were selected and duly communicated to report their duty but before their posting the Deputy Commandant General, Home Guard -cum- Chairman of the Selection Committee issued Patna High Court CWJC No.5631 of 1999 (11) dt.27-07-2017 8/20 a communication on 18th of January, 1982 to report on 26th of January, 1982 along with original certificate and testimonials regarding qualification. However, the selection was stayed vide memo no. HG 14057-81-487/C dated 1.2.1982 issued by the Commandant General and subsequently the selection was cancelled vide another order dated 20th July, 1982.
Writ petitioners thereafter filed first writ application being CWJC No. 480 of 1982. The said writ application was dismissed vide judgment dated 10th of July, 1985.
The petitioners thereafter approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (C) No. 10366 of 1985. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after hearing the parties granted special leave and converted the SLP to Civil Appeal No. 212 of 1986 which was disposed of on 13.1.1986. The relevant part of the judgment is quoted:
"Special Leave granted.
After hearing learned counsel for both the parties we make the following order:
The Government of Bihar or the competent authority authorized by it under law shall make a fresh selection of candidates for the various posts in the Home Guards in accordance with the relevant rules for which selection was made earlier from amongst the candidates who had already applied at the time Patna High Court CWJC No.5631 of 1999 (11) dt.27-07-2017 9/20 when the first selection was made in this case, after taking into consideration their eligibility and fitness for the said posts. The Government of Bihar shall not consider the case of any other fresh candidates for these posts. It shall complete the process of selection within three months. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs."
After the order of the Supreme Court again several round of writ petitions were filed by the petitioners and disposed of by this Court. Over a period of six years of disposal of Civil Appeal No. 212 of 1986 and finally after a decade of litigation the writ petitioners were appointed purportedly in compliance of the direction issued by this Court in CWJC No. 1332 of 1990 vide letter dated 2nd May 1992 (Annexure-10).
The Special Secretary to the Government in his communication to the I.G. Home Guard mentioned that in the light of the order passed in CWJC No. 238/1987 it was decided that only for the petitioners there is no need for holding any kind of physical test. It was also mentioned that age of these petitioners are considered in the light of the age already prescribed in the year 1981 and this decision should not be treated as precedent and accordingly vide police order no. 356/92 the petitioners were appointed by the Commandant, Home Guard (Annexure-11). Patna High Court CWJC No.5631 of 1999 (11) dt.27-07-2017 10/20
Subsequent to the appointment of the petitioners after relaxing rigorous physical test, a decision was taken to issue show cause notice vide letter No. 492(C) dated 8.5.1999 at the Home (Special) Department. The said letter No. 492(C) dated 8.5.1999 was challenged in the instant writ application by 11 petitioners. During the pendency of the writ application, the respondents issued letter No. 397 dated 10.5.2000 whereby the Additional Secretary to the Government communicated to the Additional Director General-cum-Commandant, Bihar Home Guard to terminate the services of all the 11 persons whose names are mentioned in para-3 of the said letter and thereafter as a follow up of the same, vide letter dated 12.5.2000 petitioners were informed about termination of their services with immediate effect in view of the letter dated 10.5.2000.
The petitioners filed I.A. No. 9459 of 2000 for amendment of the writ application and for challenging the order as contained in letter dated 10.5.2000 and follow up letter of termination dated 12.5.2000.
During the pendency of the writ application the petitioner Nos. 5 and 9, namely, Shivendra Kumar Singh and Madan Prasad died on 5.6.2005 and 2.10.2007 respectively.
In the writ application counter affidavit and Patna High Court CWJC No.5631 of 1999 (11) dt.27-07-2017 11/20 supplementary counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the respondents to substantiate the reasons of termination of the petitioners as set out in the impugned order. The respondents took the plea that no decision was taken by the Government to relax to rigorous physical test for the selection and appointment of the petitioners and as such the selection and appointment of the petitioners was illegal and unsustainable in law. In other words, the stand of the respondent was that the Government never decided to relax the requirement of rigorous physical test and as such the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Havildar Clerk was illegal. Specific stand of the respondents in the supplementary counter affidavit is quoted below:
"3. That in paragraph No. 14 of the counter affidavit it may be added that if any type of relaxation is given in physical test in selection, it will effect adversely the performance of the force. Hence, the State Government after due consideration decided not to give any type of relaxation to the candidates in the physical test."
Earlier in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts the writ application was heard and dismissed in view of the specific pleading of the respondents in the counter affidavit.
It appears that the petitioners after dismissal of the Patna High Court CWJC No.5631 of 1999 (11) dt.27-07-2017 12/20 writ application obtained the copy of the relevant noting on the file which manifests that in the matter of selection and appointment of the petitioners, decision was taken by the Government to relax the rigorous physical test. However, when the same relaxation was claimed by others citing the example of petitioners then the Advocate General opined that the relaxation in the past cannot be perpetuated and the said opinion of the Advocate General was accepted by all in including the Chief Minister that the past relaxation should not be treated as precedent. The petitioners on the strength of the information obtained under the Right to Information Act, filed Civil Review No. 226 of 2012 and the Division Bench of this Court on consideration of the submissions of the parties and on perusal of the noting in the file allowed the review application and recalled the order dated 8.1.2008 passed in the instant case and restored the writ application to its original file for hearing. The observation of the Division Bench in Civil Review No. 226 of 2012 dated 28.7.2014 qua the issue of relaxation of rigorous physical test as discussed in preceding paragraphs is axiomatic.
After order of the Division Bench in Civil Review No. 226/2012 dated 28.7.2014, the writ petitioners have filed relevant extract of official notings supplied under the RTI Act Patna High Court CWJC No.5631 of 1999 (11) dt.27-07-2017 13/20 with regard to relaxation of rigorous physical test and the order dated 28.7.2014 passed in Civil Review No. 226 of 2012 as contained in Annexures 23 and 24. However, no additional counter affidavit or supplementary counter affidavit was filed by the respondents to controvert the factual position noted in the order dated 28.07.2014 in Civil Review No. 226/2012 and thus the contention of the petitioners which was noted by the Division Bench in Civil Review No. 226/2012 remains undisputed and is now admitted factual position as no additional counter affidavit was filed by the respondents after the order dated 28.7.2014 in Civil Review No. 228/2012. Particularly, in view of the well settled doctrine of non traverse and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Naseem Bano Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.: AIR 1993 SC 2592 wherein the Apex Court held out that if the statements specifically made in the writ application have not been specifically controverted, the Court has to proceed as if the facts are undisputed.
We thought it appropriate to examine the background of the termination of the writ petitioner. From perusal of Annexures- 10 and 11 dated 2nd May, 1992 and 20th July, 1992 it appears that the Special Secretary to the Government communicated the I.G. Home Guard with regard to the decision of Patna High Court CWJC No.5631 of 1999 (11) dt.27-07-2017 14/20 the Government in special circumstance to relax the requirement of rigorous physical test for appointment of petitioners which shall not be treated as a precedent and on that basis the Commandant Home Guard issued police order No. 357/92 vide memo no. 2769 dated 20th July, 1992 whereby the writ petitioners were appointed under the order of the government in special circumstance. However, after approximately seven years of the appointment vide order contained in Annexure-12 issued on 8th of May, 1999 the Additional Secretary to the Government issued letter to the Additional Director General-cum-I.G. Home Guard with reference to filing of LPa in CWJC Nos. 8280/92, 9086/92 and 2281/93 and in the said communication the Additional Director General-cum-I.G. was intimated that the appointment made vide letter No. 1188 dated 2.6.1992 is being cancelled and process for termination of all the petitioners of CWJC No. 1332/1990 is being processed as the State Government has not decided to relax the standard of physical test in the appointment of Havildar Clerk. On the same line on 31st of May, 1999 vide memo no. 2195 (Annexure-13) notice was issued to 11 petitioners to submit their show cause. By the said notice the petitioners were communicated the decision to cancel their appointment. The relevant part of Annexure-13 reads as follows: Patna High Court CWJC No.5631 of 1999 (11) dt.27-07-2017 15/20
fo"k; %&lsok esa o[kkZLrxk ds laca/k esa uksfVlA mi;qZDr fo"k;d x`0 ¼fo0½ foHkkx] fcgkj iVuk ds i=kad 492@lh0 fnukad & 8 oka ebZ 1999 ds vkyksd esa vkidksa lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ljdkj us vius i=kad 1188 fnukad 2-6-92 ftlds }kjk vkidksa vf/kuk;d fyfid ds in ij fu;qfDr dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k Fkk] mls =qfViw.kZ ekurs gq, jn~n dj fn;k gS rFkk lh0 MCY;w0 ts0 lh0 la[;k 1332@90 dks lHkh vkosndksa dks lsok ls o[kkZLr djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k gSA d`i;k 14 fnu ds vUnj Li"V djsa fd D;ksa ugh vkidksa lsok ls c[kkZLr fd;k tk;A fu;r vof/k esa vxj vkidk vH;kosnu izkIr ugh gksrk gS rks ;g le>kk tk;sxk fd vkidksa bl laca/k esa dqN ugh dguk gS] ,oa vxzsrj fu.kZ; ys fy;k tk;sxkA 31-05-99 lekns"Vk fcgkj x`g j{kk okfguh] iVukA It appears that after the notice dated 31.5.1999 the petitioners have filed their replies wherein they have raised manifold objections to the proposed action of cancellation of their appointment after approximately eight years. The Additional secretary to the Government Home (Special) vide letter no. 397 dated 10th of May, 2000 (Annexure-16) communicated the Patna High Court CWJC No.5631 of 1999 (11) dt.27-07-2017 16/20 Additional Director General-cum- I.G. Home-guard the decision with regard to cancellation of the appointment of the appellants and as a follow up of the same the respondents issued order of termination of services of the 11 petitioners with immediate effect vide police order No. 430/2000 dated 12.5.2000.
Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners has advanced manifold arguments to assail the impugned order including the submissions made before the Review Court in Civil Review No. 226 of 2012.
Mr. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that from perusal of Annexure-12 and 13 it is evidently clear that the decision to terminate the petitioners was taken by the respondent earlier and thereafter, only an empty formality was completed in the nature of show cause notice issued to the petitioners. Mr. Sinha submitted that the decision in the instant case is violative of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the decision to cancel the appointment is hit by the principle of post decisional hearing. The Apex Court repeatedly held that the practice of post decisional hearing is violative of principle of natural justice. Reliance in this connection may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Patna High Court CWJC No.5631 of 1999 (11) dt.27-07-2017 17/20 the case of H.L. Trehan Vs. Union of India & Ors. : AIR 1989 SC 568.
Mr. Sinha counsel for the petitioners next contended that the decision of the respondents in cancelling the appointment of the petitioners is also unreasonable as the decisions to appoint the petitioners were taken by the Government and it was acted upon in 1992 and as such there was no justification to cancel the appointment and terminate the petitioners after more than seven long years particularly in view of the fact that the petitioners have not practiced any fraud or misrepresentation and their entire service was satisfactory and they have earned increments during the approximately eight years of service.
Mr. Sinha referring to the judgment of the Review Court and placing reliance on Annexure-23 has submitted that foundation of the impugned action of cancelling the appointed is founded on wrong premise of fact. He submitted that the appointments of the petitioners were made by the competent authority after the decision of the Government and the services of the petitioners cannot be annulled on the ground that after the appointment of petitioners similar relief was claimed by others and the Advocate General opined not to perpetuate the Patna High Court CWJC No.5631 of 1999 (11) dt.27-07-2017 18/20 relaxation in other cases taking the case of the petitioners as precedent.
We would like to reiterate here that the respondents have not filed additional counter affidavit to place on record any material contrary to the materials as Annexure-23. The action of the respondents was deprecated by the Division Bench while allowing the review application, as discussed in the previous paragraph. Thus in the present set of facts and circumstances only irresistible conclusion to which we arrive is that there was no infirmity in the selection and appointment of the petitioners and the order of termination was uncalled for and contrary to the record. The undisputed rather admitted fact which emerges from the pleading of this case is that there was conscious decision to relax the rigorous physical test in the matter of selection and appointment of the petitioners by the competent authority and as such the selection and appointment of the petitioners cannot be faulted and the entire action of the respondents is not only illegal, arbitrary but is mala fide in law.
In the totality of the fact situation we are of the considered view that the order of termination is violative of principles of natural justice being post decisional hearing. It is also unsustainable in view of the fact that after seven long years the Patna High Court CWJC No.5631 of 1999 (11) dt.27-07-2017 19/20 decision to cancel appointment was taken in the backdrop of the fact that in the case of others the Advocate General opined not to grant the same relaxation treating the case of the petitioners as precedent is unreasonable and arbitrary.
We also find substance in the submission of learned senior counsel for the appellant that the entire action of cancellation of appointment of the appellant and termination is founded on the premise that in the matter of selection and appointment of the appellant there was no decision by the Government was non est. The notings on the file which was considered by the Court in Civil Review No. 226 of 2012 discussed above is clinching on the point that in the matter of selection and appointment of the petitioners the Government has taken the decision to relax the physical test standard In the result, the writ application is allowed. The impugned communication dated 10.5.2000 (Annexure-16) and the follow up order of termination dated 12.5.2000 (Annexure-17) are quashed. The petitioners shall be deemed to be in continuous service and shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including the monetary benefits for the period they have been kept out of employment due to illegal, arbitrary and misleading decision and stand of the respondents.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5631 of 1999 (11) dt.27-07-201720/20
So far as the legal heirs of the petitioner nos. 5 and 9, namely, Shivendra Kumar Singh and Madan Prasad are concerned, they may be entitled to all monetary benefits till the date of their death and thereafter, all the terminal dues to which the dependents of the employees dies in harness are entitled.
(Rajendra Menon, CJ) S.Pandey/-
(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) U