# Om Prakash Srivastava v. State of U.P. and another - **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 214 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2003-03-05 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Write Petition No. 64 of 2003 - **Bench:** M. Katju, Prakash Krishna - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/om-prakash-srivastava-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-39962 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Motor Vehicle Act 1988- Section 163-A - Compensation jurisdiction of claim Tribunal- permanent diablement- compensation awarded by the Tribunal- Challenge made on the ground- under workmen compensation Act- the amount of award can be given can not be exceed by the Tribunal in motor accident- held- cannot be limited but ought to be just amount has to be determined not withstanding any thing contained in other law for the time being in force. Held- Para 8 The use of the non abstante clause in Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is quite significant. It shows that the amount of compensation determined in the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act which ought to be just cannot be limited to any amount as specified in the Workmen's Compensation Act as the amount contemplated under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act has to be determined notwithstanding any thing contained in any other law for the time being in force. (B)Motor Vehicle Act 1988- Section 170- Permission for filing Appeal- not taken- defence taken that the permission was rejected- no material brought on record- regarding challenge of rejection order- held Appeal not sustainable. Held- Para 14 In the absence of the requisite permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claim of the Insurer- appellant against the quantum of compensation determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not sustainable in law and this aspect of the matter stands amply clarified from the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in Civil Appeal No. 4292 of 2002. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Chandigarh vs. Niciolletta Rohtagi & others reported in JT 2002 (7) SC 251. The ratio of the aforesaid decision stands squarely attracted in the circumstances of the present case. Case law discussed: 200(2) TAC-213 JT 2002 (7) SC-2 ## Text http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003 counsel for the respondents do not support the contention raised by him that he is entitled to have defence representative from Central Bank of India. 33. In view of foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the writ petitioner- respondent was not entitled to have defence representative from Central Bank of India and direction to that effect by the learned single Judge cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. However, it is observed that the respondent (writ petitioner) is entitled to have a defence representative from Aligarh Gramin Bank as permitted by the Enquiry Officer or he may pray for assistance by legal practitioner in accordance with Regulation 4 as observed above. The special appeal is allowed subject to observations as made above. Parties to bear their own costs. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 5.3.2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. Civil Misc. Write Petition No. 64 of 2003 Om Prakash Srivastava ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and another ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ashok Khare Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. Constitution of India, Article- 226- service laws- Regularisation junior to the petitioner regularised in agricultural service on 3.7.81- while the Petitioner being senior ignored- on the reason that in the year adverse entry was given- subsequently, expunged- regularization given w.e.f. 15.12.93- held- entitled for regularization given w.e.f. 15.12.93- held entitled for regularization from the date on which juniors were regularised with all consequential benefit. Held- Para 4 We, therefore, allow this writ petition and direct that the petitioner should be regularised with effect from 3.7.1981 and be granted all the consequential benefit within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned. (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. In this case on 6.1.2003 learned standing counsel was granted time to file counter affidavit and thereafter on 11.2.2003 time was again granted for that purpose but no counter affidavit has been filed till today. We are not inclined to grant any further time and are disposing of this writ petition. 2. The petitioner was appointed on 22.12.1972 on ad hoc basis in the U.P. Agriculture Service. On 3rd July, 1981 an order of regularization was passed with regard to 14 persons including some persons junior to the petitioner but not for the petitioner. The reason why the regularization order was not passed in favour of the petitioner was that there was an adverse entry against him for the year 1974-75. This adverse entry was subsequent expunged on 30.6.1984, vide Annexure 5 to the writ petition. The petitioner was regularized with effect http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 1All] Om Prakash Srivastava V. State of U.P. and another 215 from 15.12.1993 but his prayer is that he should be regularised from 3.7.1981 when his juniors were regularized. 3. In our opinion the prayer of the petitioner is justified. But for the adverse entry for the year 1974-75 the petitioner would have been regularised with effect from 3.7.1981 when his juniors were regularised. 4. We, therefore, allow this writ petition and direct that the petitioner should be regularised with effect from 3.7.1981 and be granted all the consequential benefit within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 4.3.2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE S.P. SRIVASTAVA, J. THE HON'BLE M.P. SINGH, J. First Appeal From Order No. 528 of 2003 National Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Smt. Urmila Devi and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Arvind Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri B.P. Verma Motor Vehicle Act 1988- Section 163-A - Compensation jurisdiction of claim Tribunal- permanent diablement- compensation awarded by the Tribunal- Challenge made on the ground- under workmen compensation Act- the amount of award can be given can not be exceed by the Tribunal in motor accident- held- cannot be limited but ought to be just amount has to be determined not withstanding any thing contained in other law for the time being in force. Held- Para 8 The use of the non abstante clause in Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is quite significant. It shows that the amount of compensation determined in the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act which ought to be just cannot be limited to any amount as specified in the Workmen's Compensation Act as the amount contemplated under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act has to be determined notwithstanding any thing contained in any other law for the time being in force. (B)Motor Vehicle Act 1988- Section 170- Permission for filing Appeal- not taken- defence taken that the permission was rejected- no material brought on record- regarding challenge of rejection order- held Appeal not sustainable. Held- Para 14 In the absence of the requisite permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claim of the Insurer- appellant against the quantum of compensation determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not sustainable in law and this aspect of the matter stands amply clarified from the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in Civil Appeal No. 4292 of 2002. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Chandigarh vs. Niciolletta Rohtagi & others reported in JT 2002 (7) SC 251. The ratio of the aforesaid decision stands squarely attracted in the circumstances of the present case. Case law discussed: 200(2) TAC-213 JT 2002 (7) SC-251