# Smt. Farmoodi v. A.D.J. Muzaffar Nagar & Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 1113
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-07-11
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36701 of 2013
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-farmoodi-v-a-d-j-muzaffar-nagar-ors-42572
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules 1998-Rule 220B- Release of fixed deposit amount-on
ground of daughter marriage-Tribunal
rejected
application
on
ground
no
particular of expenses given-held-very
rigid
view
taken-Tribunal
failed
to
understand the need and urgency-order
not sustainable quashed-direction for
release of entire amount with interest
given.
Held: Para-10
In the instant case, the Court finds that
the Tribunal has taken a very rigid stand
and has mechanically passed the order
without
understanding
and
without
appreciating the distinction drawn by the
Supreme Court. The guidelines, which
have now been incorporated in the Rules
was only to safeguard the interest of the
claimants particularly the minors and the
illiterates.
The
guidelines
were
not
meant to understood to mean that the
Tribunal was supposed to take a rigid
stand while considering the application
of the petitioner for release of the
money.

Case Law discussed:
1994 (1) TAC 323; 2012(1)TAC 740.

## Text

2 All] Smt. Farmoodi Vs. A.D.J. Muzaffar Nagar & Ors.

1113

2. The respondent no.2 will proceed
to consider the matter regarding the
licence of the petitioner in respect of the
Fair -Price Shop in question , and decide
the same in accordance with law
expeditiously, preferably , within a period
of six weeks of the receipt of the aforesaid
explanation and documents, after giving
reasonable opportunity of hearing to all
concerned including the petitioner and by
passing a speaking order.

9. The Writ Petition is accordingly
disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

10. It is made clear that this Court
has not adjudicated the claim of the
petitioner on merits.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36701 of 2013

Smt. farmoodi

 ...Petitioner
Versus
A.D.J. Muzaffar Nagar & Ors. ..Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.D. Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules 1998-Rule 220B- Release of fixed deposit amount-on
ground of daughter marriage-Tribunal
rejected
application
on
ground
no
particular of expenses given-held-very
rigid
view
taken-Tribunal
failed
to
understand the need and urgency-order
not sustainable quashed-direction for
release of entire amount with interest
given.
Held: Para-10
In the instant case, the Court finds that
the Tribunal has taken a very rigid stand
and has mechanically passed the order
without
understanding
and
without
appreciating the distinction drawn by the
Supreme Court. The guidelines, which
have now been incorporated in the Rules
was only to safeguard the interest of the
claimants particularly the minors and the
illiterates.
The
guidelines
were
not
meant to understood to mean that the
Tribunal was supposed to take a rigid
stand while considering the application
of the petitioner for release of the
money.

Case Law discussed:
1994 (1) TAC 323; 2012(1)TAC 740.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner. The writ petition is being
decided at the admission stage itself
without calling for a counter affidavit.

2. A claim application was filed by
the petitioner under the Motor Vehicles
Act against the owners of the vehicle and
the insurance company for compensation
in a case where the son of the petitioner
died in a motor accident. The Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal gave an award
dated 11th September, 2012 awarding a
compensation of Rs. 3,28,500/- (Three
lacs twenty eight thousand and five
hundred) in favour of the petitioner and
directed the insurance company to deposit
the entire amount along with interest. The
Tribunal further directed that 50 per cent
of the amount would be paid to the
petitioner and the balance 50 per cent
would be kept in the nationalized bank for
a period of five years.

3. The said award was accepted by
the insurance company and the amount
1114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

has been deposited before the Tribunal,
pursuant to which, 50 per cent of the
amount has been withdrawn by the
petitioner.

4. The petitioner thereafter moved
an application before the Tribunal seeking
permission for release of the balance
amount in her favour contending that her
eldest daughter was going to get married
and that the amount was required for the
expenses involved in the marriage. The
Tribunal, by the impugned order, rejected
the application on the ground that the
petitioner has not been able to give details
of the expenses incurred by her for the
amount already released in her favour,
and consequently, the balance amount
could not be released. The petitioner,
being aggrieved, has filed the present writ
petition.

5. The purpose of keeping the
amount in a fixed deposit is for a specific
purpose. The Supreme Court in the case
of General Manager, Kerala State
Road
Transport
Corporation
Vs.
Sushamma Thomas & Others, 1994 (1)
TAC 323 issued certain guidelines to the
Claims
Tribunal
while
awarding
compensation. The said guidelines are
extracted below:

"(i).The claims Tribunal should, in
the case of minors, invariably order
amount of compensation awarded to the
minor invested in long term fixed
deposited at least till the date of the minor
attaining majority. The expenses incurred
by the guardian or next friend may
however, be allowed to be withdrawn.

(ii). In the case of illiterate claimants
also the Claims Tribunal should follow
the procedure set out in (i) above, but if
lump sum payment is required for
effecting purchases of any movable or
immovable property such as agricultural
implements, rickshaw, etc. to earn a living
the Tribunal may consider such a request
after making sure that the amount is
actually spent for the purpose and the
demand is not a ruse to withdraw money.

(iii). In the case of semi-literate
persons the Tribunal should ordinarily
resort to the procedure set out in (i) above
unless it is satisfied for reasons to be
stated in writing, that the whole or part of
the amount is required for expending any
existing business or for purchasing some
property as mentioned in (ii) above for
earning his livelihood in which case the
Tribunal will ensure that the amount is
invested for the purpose for which it is
demanded and paid.

(iv). In the case of literate persons also
the Tribunal may resort to the procedure
indicated in (i) above subject to the
realization set out in (ii) and (iii) above, if
having regard to the age, fiscal background
and strata of society to which the claimant
belongs and such other considerations, the
Tribunal in the larger interest of the claimant
and with a view to ensuring the safety of the
compensation awarded to him thinks it
necessary to so order.

(v). In the case of widows the claims
Tribunal should invariably follow the
procedure set out in (i) above.

(vi). In personal injury cases, if
further treatment is necessary the Claims
Tribunal on being satisfied about the
same, which shall be recorded in writing,
permit withdrawal of such amount as is
necessary for incurring the expenses for
such treatment.
2 All] Smt. Farmoodi Vs. A.D.J. Muzaffar Nagar & Ors.

1115

(vii). In all cases in which investment
in long term fixed deposits is made it
should be an condition that the bank will
not permit any loan or advance on the
fixed deposit and interest on the amount
invested is paid monthly directly to the
claimant or his guardian, as the case may
be.

(viii). In all cases Tribunal should
grant to the claimants liberty to apply for
withdrawal in case of an emergency. To
meet with such a contingency if the
amount awarded is substantial the Claims
Tribunal may invest it in more than one
fixed deposit so that if need be one such
F.D.R. can be liquidated."

6. These guidelines have now been
incorporated by the legislature and Rule
220-B of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules,
1998 have been inserted in the Rules.

7. The purpose for keeping the
amount in a fixed deposit has been
explained by the Supreme Court again in
A.V. Padma and Others Vs. R.
Venugopal and Others, 2012 (1) TAC
740, namely "safeguard the feed from
being frittered away by the beneficiaries
due
to
ignorance
illiteracy
and
susceptibility to exploitation."

8. The Supreme Court held :

"4. In the case of Susamma Thomas
(supra),
this
Court
issued
certain
guidelines in order to "safeguard the feed
from
being
frittered
away
by
the
beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy
and susceptibility to exploitation". Even
as per the guidelines issued by this Court,
long term fixed deposit of amount of
compensation is mandatory only in the
case of minors, illiterate claimants and
widows. In the case of illiterate claimants,
the Tribunal is allowed to consider the
request
for
lumpsum
payment
for
effecting purchase of any
movable
property such as agricultural implements,
rickshaws etc. to earn a living. However,
in such cases, the Tribunal shall make
sure that the amount is actually spent for
the purpose and the demand is not a ruse
to withdraw money. In the case of semiilliterate claimants, the Tribunal should
ordinarily
invest
the
amount
of
compensation in long term fixed deposit.
But if the Tribunal is satisfied for reasons
to be stated in writing that the whole or
part of the amount is required for
expanding an existing business or for
purchasing some property for earning a
livelihood, the Tribunal can release the
whole or part of the amount of
compensation to the claimant provided
the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is
invested for the purpose for which it is
demanded and paid. In the case of literate
persons, it is not mandatory to invest the
amount of compensation in long term
fixed deposit. The expression used in
guideline No. (iv) issued by this Court is
that in the case of literate persons also the
Tribunal may resort to the procedure
indicated in guideline No. (i), whereas in
the guideline Nos. (i), (ii), (iii) and (v),
the expression used is that the Tribunal
should. Moreover, in the case of literate
persons, the Tribunal may resort to the
procedure indicated in guideline No. (i)
only if, having regard to the age, fiscal
background and strata of the society to
which the claimant belongs and such
other considerations, the Tribunal thinks
that in the larger interest of the claimant
and with a view to ensure the safety of the
compensation awarded, it is necessary to
invest the amount of compensation in
long term fixed deposit.
1116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

5. Thus, sufficient discretion has been
given to the Tribunal not to insist on
investment of the compensation amount in
long term fixed deposit and to release even
the whole amount in the case of literate
persons. However, the Tribunals are often
taking
a
very
rigid
stand
and
are
mechanically ordering in almost all cases that
the amount of compensation shall be
invested in long term fixed deposit. They are
taking such a rigid and mechanical approach
without understanding and appreciating the
distinction drawn by this Court in the case of
minors, illiterate claimants and widows and
in the case of semi- literate and literate
persons. It needs to be clarified that the
above guidelines were issued by this Court
only to safeguard the interests of the
claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates
and others whose amounts are sought to be
withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The
guidelines were not to be understood to mean
that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand
while considering an application seeking
release of the money. The guidelines cast a
responsibility on the Tribunals to pass
appropriate orders after examining each case
on its own merits. However, it is seen that
even in cases when there is no possibility or
chance of the feed being frittered away by
the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy
or susceptibility to exploitation, investment
of the amount of compensation in long term
fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a
matter of course and in a routine manner,
ignoring the object and the spirit of the
guidelines issued by this Court and the
genuine requirements of the claimants. Even
in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals
are automatically ordering investment of the
amount of compensation in long term fixed
deposit without recording that having regard
to the age or fiscal background or the strata
of the society to which the claimant belongs
or such other considerations, the Tribunal
thinks it necessary to direct such investment
in the larger interests of the claimant and
with a view to ensure the safety of the
compensation awarded to him. The Tribunals
very often dispose of the claimant's
application for withdrawal of the amount of
compensation in a mechanical manner and
without proper application of mind. This has
resulted in serious injustice and hardship to
the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think
that in view of the guidelines issued by this
Court, in every case the amount of
compensation should be invested in long
term
fixed
deposit
and
under
no
circumstances the Tribunal can release the
entire amount of compensation to the
claimant even if it is required by him. Hence
a change of attitude and approach on the part
of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of
justice. "

9. The Supreme Court held that
these guidelines were issued to keep the
amount in a fixed deposit for a period of
time was mandatory only in the case of
minors, illiterate claimants and widows.

10. In the instant case, the Court
finds that the Tribunal has taken a very
rigid stand and has mechanically passed
the order without understanding and
without appreciating the distinction drawn
by the Supreme Court. The guidelines,
which have now been incorporated in the
Rules was only to safeguard the interest
of the claimants particularly the minors
and the illiterates. The guidelines were
not meant to understood to mean that the
Tribunal was supposed to take a rigid
stand while considering the application of
the petitioner for release of the money.

11. In the instant case, the Court
finds that the application was meant for
the release of the money so that the
2 All] Dharmendra Kumar Saxena Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

1117
petitioner's daughter could get married.
Proof of this fact was also filed, but the
Tribunal has failed to understand the need
and urgency in the matter and has
mechanically passed the order while
rejecting the application. There is nothing
to show that the petitioner is an illiterate
widow. On the other hand, a genuine
reason has been given for the release of
the balance amount.

12. Consequently, without further
adverting on this issue, the Court is of the
opinion that the impugned order cannot be
sustained and is quashed.

13. The writ petition is allowed.

14. The petitioner is entitled for the
release of the amount as prayed by her.
The Tribunal is directed to release the
amount along with the interest so accrued
immediately upon the receipt of the
certified copy of this order.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.07.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36766 of 2013

Dharmendra Kumar Saxena ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.
... Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri G.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Service
Law-
Transfer-against
government
transfer policy-court should be slow
interfere-proper
way
to
make
representation before the competent
authority-who take appropriate decisiondisclosing reasons for breech of transfer
policy-petition disposed of.

Held: Para-42
After careful consideration of the law laid
down by the Supreme Court, I am of the
view that this Court cannot interfere with
the transfer matter as the Government
servant has no vested right to continue at
a place of his choice. The Government can
transfer the officer/employee in the
administrative exigency and in public
interest. However, if a transfer is made
against the executive instructions or
transfer policy, the competent authority
must record brief reason in the file for
deviating from the transfer policy or
executive instructions and the transfer
must be necessary in the public interest
or
administrative
exigency.
If
an
officer/employee, who is aggrieved by
his/her transfer, makes a representation
to
the
competent
authority,
his/her
representation
must
be
decided
objectively by a reasoned order.

Case Law discussed:
(1981)2 SCC 72; (1986) 4 SCC 131; 1991
Supp (2) SCC 659; (1994) 6 SCC 98; (2004)
11 SCC 402; (2007) 8 SCC 150; (2009) 15 SCC
178; (2010)13 SCC 306; (2003) 11 SCC 740;
(1979) 3 SCC 489; (1973) 1 SCC 194; (1975) 3
SCC 503; (1989) 2 SCC 602; (2004) 7 SCC
405; (1994) 1 AC 531; (1973) 2 SCC 836;
(1990) 4 SCC 594; AIR 1970 SC 150; (2004) 5
SCC 568; (2004) 5 SCC 573; (2008) 3 SCC
172; (2008) 9 SCC 407; (2008) 11 SCC 205;
(2009) 12 SCC 609; (2009) 3 SCC 258; (2009)
4 SCC 422; (2010) 3 SCC 732; (2010) 13 SCC
336.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Singh Baghel, J.)

1. The writ jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is invoked by a Government servant
against his transfer order dated 10th May,
2013 passed by the respondent no. 2 i.e.