Judgment · High Court · 2007

Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3 The petitioners who are working as teachers in the service of th e State of Assam (cid:28)Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh (cid:29) would like to make represent ation highlighting their grievance, which is ventilated by the petitioners in t hese writ petitions. The decision on such representation however would be with in the ambit of the policy decision of the State. 4. We, therefore, direct the respondents to consider the represent ation as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 2(two) weeks from the da te of receipt of the representation. Goes without saying that disposal of the re presentation be made in accordance with law. 5. aring for the petitioners did not make any further submission. 6. In view of the observations made above, the learned counsel appe The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE. Samir/ IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM NAGALAND MEGHALAYA MANIPUR TRIPURA MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H.N.SARMA PRESENT W.P.(C) No.3169/2001.

1. State of Assam

2. The Secretary to the Govt of Assam Home(A) Department Dispur, Guwahati

3. The Director General of Police, Assam Ulubari, Guwahati 7

4. The Commandant, 9th A.P.Battalion Abhayapuri Dist. Bongaigaon. Now shifted to Bongaigaon VERSUS

Sri Kalyan Das S/O Late Khagendra Nath Das Ward No.IV P.O.Abhayapuri Dist. Bongaigaon, Assam. Appellants Respondent. For the Appellants : Mr P.S.Deka, For the Respondent Jr.Govt Advocate Mr. A.S.Choudhury Advocate. Date of hearing & Judgment : 25/9/2006. JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL) This application is filed under section 30 of the Workmen’s Comp 1. ensation Act 1923 challenging the legality and validity of the award dated 16. 7.97 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Dhubri in WC.27 /94.

The claimant who was a driver under the appellants was serving under the Commandant, 9th A.P.Battalion, in the district of Bongaigaon, got sev eral injuries due to exploitation of a Bomb causing heart to his body on his w ay to Bengtol seriously of the Bomb Blust. The claimant suffered by way of fract ured by bones of his right leg. The Vehicle in question which was claimed to be owned by the appellants. The claimant filed an application for compensation before the le 3. arned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Bongaigaon under the Workmen’s Compe nsation Act.

During the course of hearing, the claimant examined himself and exhibited several documents including a certificate issued by the Assistant Prof essor of Surgery, Gauhati Medical College- Ext.4 . The claimant apart from himse lf examined Dr. Niranjan Das, PW-2 on 14.6.95 vide Ext. 18. The said PW-2 stated in his deposition inter alia upon examination that the right leg of the claima nt had became shorter and disabled, as a result of which he is facing difficulti es to perform his own duties and if he remains same, it would be more deteriorat e in future. From the appellants side no witnesses were adduced, but on the basi s of the record it is submitted by Mr. P.C.Deka, learned Junior Govt. Advocate t hat the claimant-respondent has been retained in service by the authority by giv ing light work and he is getting same salary as usual. In fact the claimant-resp ondent in hisk deposition has also admitted that he is getting full wages. Upon consideration of the available materials on record, the lea 5. rned Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation vide impugned order held that the loss of earning capacity of the claimant is 100% and accordingly, awarded compensatio n of Rs. 97,954/- to the claimant-respondent.

From the aforesaid discussion of the fact as disclosed above it is seen that the claimant-respondent is getting full wages which he got before the accident and in that view of the matter there is no loss of earning capacity of the claimant-respondent as a workman. The learned Commissioner in calculatin g the loss of income applied the provision of Section 4(a) (3) of the Act and t he maximum celling on the wages of the claimant was also limited to Rs. 1000/- o nly.

As per provisions contained before the amendment of Section 4 to ok place vide Act 30.1.95. The learned Commissioner upon the aforesaid considera tion, by applying un-amended provision about the compensation fixing the limit o f wage of Rs. 1000/-. However, no application has been made for enhancement of the compensation.

Mr. P.S.Deka, learned Junior Govt Advocate submits that since th e claimant -respondent has been provided necessary job and getting full wages as usual i.e prior to the accident, there is no loss of income of the claimant-res pondent and hence he is not entitled to get any compensation under the Act.