GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RLY NEW DELHI Vs. SAJJAN RAJ
LAWS(RAJ)-1956-11-12
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on November 28,1956

GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RLY. Appellant
VERSUS
SAJJAN RAJ Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS is a writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi. It is directed against one sajjanraj, who is an employee of the Northern Railway and against the District magistrate, Jodhpur, who is non-petitioner No. 2.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to it are that the non-petitioner No. 1 Sajjanraj, was an employee of the Northern Railway and so he drew ration for himself and his dependants from the Railway Grain Shop at concessional rates. It was alleged against him that from November 1947 to May 1948 he drew ration illegally for his brother Uttamchand although his brother was over 18 years of age and was not dependant upon him. The matter was ultimately decided by the Divisional Personal Officer, Northern railway and Rs. 63-4-0 were ordered to be recovered from the wages of non-petitioner No. 1 under Section 7 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The said amount of Rs. 63-4-0 was accordingly deducted from his pay from September 1954 to January 1955 by instalments. The non-petitioner No. 1 thereafter presented an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (which will hereafter be called the Act) before the District Magistrate Jodhpur. It was urged by him before that authority that the concessional ration drawn by him did not fall within the ambit of the term "wages" under the Act, that the deduction of Rs. 63-4-0 from his wages was, therefore, illegal and it should be ordered to be refunded to him. This application was allowed by non-petitioner No. 2 on 29th September 1955 and the petitioner was. directed to refund the said amount to non-petitioner No. 1. It is against this order that the present application has been filed.
(3.) ONE of the grounds raised by the Petitioner in his application was that the district Magistrate could not be validly appointed as an authority under the payment of Wages Act and so he had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. This argument, however, was not pressed at the time of arguments and since it has been abandoned. We need not enter into that matter.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.