AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—The petitioners have filed this writ petition for issuance of a direction to the respondents to provide a suitable job to petitioner No. 2, who is son of petitioner No. l, on the ground that petitioner No. 1 has suffered serious injuries in a train accident.
In the present case, on 21.4.1999, petitioner No. 1 was travelling by train from Jagadhri to Mustafabad. When he was getting down from the train at Mustafabad Railway Station, he fell down as the train started moving. Ultimately, because of the nature of injuries, his left leg and left arm were amputated. With regard to the said accident, petitioner No. 1 filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh and vide Award dated 31.7.2002, he was awarded and amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation.
Now, it is case of the petitioners that since petitioner No. 1 has received permanent injuries in the aforesaid train accident, therefore, his son - petitioner No. 2, should be provided a suitable job. It is alleged that the Railway department has provided jobs to the dependents of the deceased, who died in the railway accident. In this connection, the petitioners have referred to the decision of the Government Annexure P-2, whereby the spouse/ward members of the persons who died on 2.12.2000 in the rail collusion of 3005 U.P. Howrah-Amritsar were considered for giving appointment in the. Railways.
Undisputedly, there is no policy framed by the Railway Department for providing jobs to the persons, who sustain injuries while travelling in the train. As far as the decision Annexure P-2 is concerned, case of petitioners is not covered by the same, as petitioner No. 1 has received injuries, due to the negligence of the railway authorities, while alighting from the train. He has not received the injuries in a train collusion. Thus, we do not find any ground to entertain this petition.
The petitioners have also made prayer for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, vide Award dated 31.7.2002. This, prayer of the petitioners is not. only belated, but they have also not placed on record any material to show that the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs is unreasonable. Petitioner No. 1 has been awarded the maximum compensation, which can be awarded in an injury case under the Railway Accidents & Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990.iThus, we do not find any merit in this writ petition.
Dismissed.