(O&M) Parveen Kumar Vs Executive Engineer Provincial Div.

[2] The claimant was employed as Beldar with respondent. W h ile on duty o n 18.05.1996, he sustained inj u ries, due to which, he lost his eye sight. H e was rendered crippled. A s per the medical evidence, his disability was assessed at 47%. Disabil i ty Certificate (Exhibit AW-II) w as proved b y examining Dr. Raj Kumar Tuli, who appeared as AW3. [3] Respondent did not lead an y evidence. The Commissioner n on suited th e claimant, holding that the c l aimant was not engaged in a ny technical work and thus, cannot be held t o be workman. It was further h eld that he h a ving been employed as a casual labour on DC rates, he cannot b e

¶12

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.21 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶13

FAO-883-2000 (O&M) -2-

¶14

held to be a workman in terms of the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act.

¶15

[4] I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully perused records of the case.

¶16

[5] In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner cannot be sustained. Duties of the claimant have been spelled out by respondent in written statement, which read as under:-

¶17

the employment of the applicant was of a casual nature and he was engaged as helper to assist the booth clerk at Toll Tax Plaza (Barrier) to stop the coming/going vehicles on National Highway No.1

¶18

[6] Thus, the duties of the claimant are akin to Item No.(xxic-c) and (xxix-d) incorporated by way of State amendment in Schedule II of the Act. The duties being not clerical will relate to the aforesaid items.

¶19

[7] Further in terms of Section 2(dd) (iii) of 1923 Act, the contract of employment can be in writing or oral, expressed or implied. Merely for the reason that the claimant was employed on daily wages at DC rates, his rights under the Workmen’s Compensation Act cannot be scuttled. Since the employment is not in dispute, this Court finds that the claimant-appellant is entitled to receive compensation for permanent disability of 47% suffered by him, which is resulted in loss of vision of right eye.

¶20

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.21 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

FAO-883-2000 (O&M)

¶22

-3-

¶23

[8] Appellant was 20 years of age at the time of accident. In terms of Schedule IV appended to the Act, the relevant factor will be 224.00.

¶24

The amount of compensation payable thus is tabulated as under:-

¶25

1	Amount of compensation calculated as per Section 4(b) i.e. an amount equal to 60% of the monthly wages of the injured/employee multiplied by relevant factor.	1500 x 60% = Rs.900/- 900 x 224.00 = Rs.2,01,600/-
2	Percentage of loss of earning capacity as per Schedule I Part II	2,00,000/- x 30% = Rs.60,000/-
3	Total compensation to be awarded	Rs.2,61,600/-
4	Interest and penalty to be awarded in the said amount in view of Section 4A	12% for the period commencing from 30 days after the date of accident till realization.
5	Penalty	50% of 2,000,000/- = _₹_1,00,000/-

¶26

[9] In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed.

¶27

[10] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands

¶28

disposed off .

¶29

(PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 14.01.2026 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶30

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.21 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(O&M) Parveen Kumar v. Executive Engineer Provincial Div.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Parveen Kumar v. Executive Engineer Provincial Div.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devinder Nath Jindal and Others Vs Smt. Manju and Others

Kabir Hussain Vs UOI

(O&M) Kesho Ram Vs Jawaley Di Hatti etc.

Capt. Deepak Raj Vs Dr. Sumita Mishra, IAS

Sadhu Singh Vs Bahadur Singh and Ors.

Dana Devi Vs Molar Ram and Others