Wednesday, 20, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Union Of India And Another vs Mohammad Ashraf Rather And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1070 j&K/2

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1070 j&K/2
Judgement Date : 15 September, 2021

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Union Of India And Another vs Mohammad Ashraf Rather And Others on 15 September, 2021
                               HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                                                AT SRINAGAR

                                          LPAOW no. 04/2019
                                           [LPA no. 13/2019]

                                                                  Reserved on 10.09.2021
                                                                Pronounced on 15.09.2021

      Union of India and another
                                                                            Appellants
                                           Through: Mr T. M. Shamsi, ASGI

                                           Versus

      Mohammad Ashraf Rather and others
                                                                       Respondents

                                           Through: Mr G. N. Shaheen, Advocate
      Coram:

                       Hon'ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge
                        Hon'ble Mr Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, Judge

                                               ORDER

Per Magrey, J.

1/- By the present appeal, the appellant, Union of India, for short UOI,

challenges and seeks the setting aside of the Judgment dated 12.10.2017, for short

impugned judgment, passed by the learned Single Judge, in a writ petition, OWP

no. 1947/2015, titled Mohammad Ashraf Rather v. Union of India and others,

inter-alia on the grounds that the impugned judgment is factually incorrect and

legally unsustainable.

2/- This Court, on 10th September, 2018, has stayed the further proceedings in

the contempt petition no. 39/2018 arising out of OWP no. 1947/2015 with a

stipulation that the entire awarded amount is deposited before the Registry in terms

of order dated 12.10.2017 within two weeks and on being deposited the amount be

kept in fixed deposit initially for a period of six months.

3/- In compliance to the direction dated 10th September, 2018, the appellants

deposited an amount of Rs. 14,27,326/- with the Registry out of which an amount AMJAD AHMAD LONE 2021.09.16 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

of Rs. 5.00 lacs was ordered to be released in favour of the respondent in terms of

order dated 11th July, 2019.

4/- Subsequent thereto the Writ Record was called for in terms of order dated 7th

September, 2021 and the same is on record.

5/- A brief relook at the events leading to the filing of the present appeal is

imperative, thus:

6/- One Mohammad Ashraf Rather S/o Mohammad Shaban R/o Kadlabal,

Pampore, was allegedly working as Labourer after having been hired as such by

the Officer Commanding, 15 Corps-appellant no. 2 and while working as such at

15 Corps Army, Badami Bagh, Cantonment Srinagar,on 2nd May, 2002, he got

injured in a bomb blast incident and sustained multiple injuries which resulted in

amputation of both of his arms. Thereafter, the respondent approached the

respondents for payment of compensation which was denied, compelling him to

file a writ petition before the Writ Court, being OWP no. 1947/2015, seeking

direction upon the respondents to pay him Rs. 57,80,000/- as compensation on

account of the disability suffered by him while doing the hired work for appellant

no. 2/ respondent no. 2. He had further sought a direction upon the respondents to

arrange for the artificial arms and to enable him to undergo the plastic surgery of

mouth and face.

7/- The appellants/ respondents had appeared and filed their reply before the

Writ Court denying the contention of the respondent/ petitioner of having been

hired by them. It was stated by the appellants before the Writ Court that the

respondent/ petitioner was hired by a private contractor for the job.

8/- The Learned Single Judge, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties

and on consideration of the matter, has allowed the writ petition and directed the

appellants/ respondents therein to pay an amount of Rs. 12.00 lacs to the

AMJAD AHMAD LONE 2021.09.16 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

respondent/ petitioner therein along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of

filing of the writ petition.

9/- Aggrieved of the impugned judgment, the appellants have filed the present

appeal to seek reversal of the same.

10/- We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned

judgment and the material available on the file.

11/- Considered the submissions made.

12/- What appears from the pleadings and the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the appellants is that the impugned judgment is bad in law and facts,

therefore, unsustainable and liable to be set-aside as such, seeks reversal of the

same. The primary ground taken in support of such plea, by the appellants, is that

there was no employer-employee relationship existing between the appellants and

the respondent as the respondent had not been hired by the appellants, therefore,

there was no scope for invoking the Doctrine of vicarious liability by the Writ

Court.

13/- The Writ Court after taking into consideration all aspects of the matter, and

while appreciating the fact that the respondent/ petitioner has lost both of his arms,

therefore, incapacitated to even attend to himself not to speak of looking after his

family, directed for payment of an amount Rs. 12.00 lacs as compensation in

favour of respondent/ petitioner while taking Rs. 48,000/- as loss of income per

annum i.e. Rs. 4,000/- per month, held that the petitioner is deprived of the total

future loss of income as Rs. 12.00 lacs while multiplying the annual income with

multiplier 25. This way the appellants/ respondents have been directed to pay

respondent/ petitioner an amount of Rs. 12.00 lacs along with interest @ 6% per

annum from the date of filing of the writ petition.

14/- The impugned judgment does not appear to be deviating from the settled

position of law. We feel that the lowest possible income i.e. Rs. 4000/- per month AMJAD AHMAD LONE 2021.09.16 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

has been taken into consideration while dealing with the future loss of the

respondent/ petitioner. Therefore, no interference in the matter is called for.

15/- In view of above, the appeal being without any merit, is dismissed along

with all CMs. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. The respondent shall be

entitled to the amount already directed by the Writ Court in terms of the impugned

judgment minus the amount already paid.

16/- Writ Records be detagged and sent back along with the copy of this order

forthwith.

17/- The appeal, as such, is dismissed on the above lines. There shall, however,

be no order as to costs.

                               (Vinod Chatterji Koul)                   (Ali Mohammad Magrey)
                                          Judge                                  Judge
      Srinagar
      15.09.2021
      Amjad Lone PS

                                    Whether the order is speaking:      Yes/No

                                    Whether the order is non-speaking: Yes/No




AMJAD AHMAD LONE
2021.09.16 12:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter