Delhi High Court
New Delhi Municipal Council vs Asha Devi & Ors. on 20 October, 2016
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: October 20, 2016
+ FAO 297/2016 & C.M. 24349/2016
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Anil Grover, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Kanika Singh, Advocate
Versus
ASHA DEVI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Jatinder Kamra, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
Impugned order of 29th February, 2016, grants compensation of
`10 lacs odd, to the legal heirs of the deceased.
Sole contention raised by learned Standing Counsel for appellant is
that the amount of `1 lac deposited by appellant has not been set off. It is
submitted by learned Standing Counsel for appellant that ex gratia
payment of `1 lac was promptly made to the legal heirs of the deceased in
order to meet the funeral expenses etc. and infact, the said payment was
an interim compensation, which is required to be paid in such a situation
and so, the amount of `1 lac paid ex gratia has to be treated as interim
compensation and needs to be adjusted against the compensation
awarded.
To support the impugned order, learned counsel for respondents
relies upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in W.P.(C) 4897/2007
Union of India Vs. Hira Rani, rendered on 16th August, 2010 to submit
that an ex gratia payment is not to be adjusted and it has been so clarified
by the Ministry of Finance in the case of Smt. R. Vijaykumari, as referred
to in Hira Rani (Supra). Attention of this Court is drawn to appellant's
Communication of 21st July, 2014 to point out that it was not an interim
compensation and in view of decision in Hira Rani (Supra), the ex gratia
payment of `1 lac is not required to be adjusted against the compensation
awarded.
In rebuttal, learned Standing Counsel for appellant draws the
attention of this Court to paragraph No.11 of the impugned order to point
out that the observations made in the aforesaid paragraph needs to be
expunged as immediate expenses in case of unfortunate death of an
employee are required to be disbursed in form of ex gratia payment.
What has been said by learned Commissioner in paragraph No. 11
the impugned order needs to be taken note of. It reads as under:-
"Thus, in view of the Section 8(1) any payment made by
the employer for the death of the deceased employee except
depositing the same with Commissioner, Employees
Compensation shall not be treated as the amount of
compensation under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
and only the amount deposited with the Commissioner shall be
treated as amount paid towards compensation."
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, the material
on record and the decision cited, I find that what has been said in
paragraph No.11 of the impugned order cannot hold good as an absolute
proposition because if any interim compensation is paid by an employer
in a case of death of an employee, the same has to be adjusted against the
ultimate compensation granted under the Employee's Compensation Act,
1923. However, in view of decision in Hira Rani (Supra), the ex gratia
payment is not required to be adjusted. It is clarified that if any interim
compensation is paid by the employer, then the same would not come
within the ambit of ex gratia payment and would be treated as an interim
compensation, which of course is required to be adjusted while granting
compensation under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. Since the
ex gratia payment is not in form of interim compensation and so in the
facts of instant case, impugned order is not being interfered with.
With aforesaid clarification, interim order of 13th July, 2016 is
vacated. Records be remitted back forthwith.
This appeal and application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 20, 2016
r
