LexTHE DVISIONAL ENGINEER, G.I.P. RAILWAY, versus MAHADEO RAGHOO AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
~ . S.C.R ..
1345
SUPREME.COUR~ REPORTS
~
' .
. .
.. ~
- .
.
. ;
lant also should have got the benefit of the doubt.·
At this stage, it is not out of place to mention: one
fact. It appears from the evidence of the Investigat-
ing Officer, P.W. 14, that in the course· of th~ irivesti-.
gation the prosecuting authorities were of the opinion
that the murder in this case was to be attributed.• to
the prosecution witness, ·Ram
Bhawan, P.W. 4,
and
not to the appellant, and that in their view even the
evidence as against Ram Bhawan was not sufficient
to put him on trial for the murder. Doubtless such·
an opinion of the prosecuting authorities has no · rele-
vancy in the case and should · not have .been placed
on the record in this case. But when we have. to
consider the desirability or otherwise of retrial, we
need not shut our eyes to these features of .the ·case.
which have been brought on the record. In the
cir~
cumstances mentioned above we do not consider that
the interests of justice require that any retrial should
be ordered. We accordingly .direct that there shall· be
no retrial.
.
: . . .
.
. In the result, the convictions of the appellant .under
sections 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and
the sentences therefore are hereby set aside. But his
conviction under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code
is maintained as also the sentence of two. year~. and a
half in respect thereof. This appeal is accordingly
allowed partially to the extent indicated above.
·
Appeal partially allowed.' '
THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, G.LP. RAILWAY
v.
' .
MAHADEO RAGHOO AND ANOTHER;· .
[VJYIAI:" .. BosE,
JAGANNADHADAs,
VEJ>T:\(ATARAMA.
A:YYAR. and B.. P. SINHA JJ.]
, ,. ,
.. ,
Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (IV of 1936), s."2·(;i}-Wages-
Houf~ rent allowance.,.-'rJlhether falls•r,vithin. the <irfinition .of·wages
under the Act-Rule 3(i) of the statutor.y R_ules framed.by the Gov-
ernment-Legal effect thereof.
,. · " ....
'
' '"
""' · ·
The Railwa{ Board under the 'Ministry of Railw~~s of fhd Gov-
ernment of India introduced a scheme with effect 1frori:l<tb:e'. 1st
1955
Suraj Pal
v.
The State of
Uttar fradesh
Jagannadhadas J.
1955
March 2
ig55 -
The bivisional
Engin~er;. G./._P.
Rail]IJay
v; ..
Mahadeo Raghoo
and another
1346
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
r 19551 · 4.
Novem~er .1947 granting compensatory (city) allowance ar:.d house
ren~. allowances at certain rates to certain Railway employees
(in~
eluding the 1st respondent who wa_s, ~ rajlway einployee since 1945)
stationed at specified head~quarters. The first respondent. drew this
allov.;ance along with his salary up io the 18th August 1948, when
he was offered by the Government, quarters· .<:uitable to his post,
but he refused to occupy the same and the house rent allowance was
stopped from the date of his refusal to occupy the quarter offered to
him.
·
Rule,}(i). of the., Statutory Rules framed· by the Government
arid Pllt ihto effect On 1st November 1947 runs as follows :
. "Th.e ho'use rent allo~a~ce ~in not be admissible to those who
occupy a'.ccommodation pto'.vided by Government or those to whom
acCommodation has been offered by Governine'nt. but Who.
have
refused" .
. Held," ·tllat the house ient alloWance is adn1issible only so long
as an employee is stationed <it one of the specified places and has not
been offered Government qllarters.
T.he rules distitictly provide
that the allowance will not be· admissible to those who occupy· Gov-
ernment .quar.ters or. _thos·e to whom such quarters have been off~red
but who have refused to take advantage of the offer. Once an em-
ployee Of the descl-iption given above has beeri offered stlita~le hoUse
accommodation and he has refused it, he ceases t9 be eniitled to the
house rent allowance and that allowance ceaSes to be "wages" within
the meaning bf the. definition in s. 2(vi) of the Act because it is no
more payable under the terms of the contract.
The grant Of house rent .allowance does not create an indefeasi-
ble. right in. the employee at .all· places wherever he may· be posted
and in all, ~ircumstances, irrespective of whether or not he has Peen
offered Coverllme~t qu<irters.
·
CIVIL . APPEL!,ATE
JuRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
208 of 1952.
' .
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and
+
Order dated the· 28th day of September 1951 of the
Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Bombay
in Application No. 500 of 1951.
M: Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.