HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2773 of 2025

26 September, 2025

Vimla Devi --Petitioner

Versus

Employees Compensation Commissioner --Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Akram Parvez, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

This writ petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India has been moved by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 passed by respondent-Employees Compensation Commissioner/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi in Misc. Case No.256 of 2024 Smt. Vimla Devi and Others Vs. Manmohan Singh and Others, filed under Section 22 of the Employee Compensation Act (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’) and further prayed for a direction to respondent to permit her to withdraw the amount which was deposited in the name of daughters of petitioner amounting to Rs.3,00,000/-, which was awarded by

the National Lok Adalat in favour of her daughters.

2. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of employment, petitioner’s husband had died leaving behind the petitioner and two minor daughters. Petitioner filed a case before the learned Employees Compensation Commissioner, Uttarkashi

and later on, the said matter was referred to National Lok Adalat. National Lok Adalat, District Uttarkashi vide its order dated 11.05.2024 awarded Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of petitioner and Rs.1,50,000/- each in favour of petitioner’s daughters and the amount which was given to the petitioner’s daughters was deposited in a Nationalized Bank in the form of fixed deposit and same shall be released after they attained the age of majority. Thereafter, petitioner fixed the said amount in the name of her daughters amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- in each daughter’s account and the petitioner received Rs.1,50,000/- through cheque. Thereafter, petitioner moved an application before the respondent under Section 22 of the Act, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 30.09.2024. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by challenging the impugned order dated 30.09.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after 11 days of death of her husband, petitioner also gave birth to a male child; she is a widow lady and presently she has the responsibility of three minor children and the amount awarded by the National Lok Adalat was not sufficient to take care of the children. He further submits that the petitioner is presently unemployed and is not doing any work due to responsibility of three minor children, she is in dire need of money and if the respondent was permitted to withdraw the amount deposited in the name of her daughters, she would able to maintain her minor children. He also submits that the impugned order passed by respondent is totally illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the entire documents available on record particularly, the impugned order dated 30.09.2024, this Court is of the view that learned Employees Compensation Commissioner/ Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi, has rightly rejected the application filed by petitioner under Section 22 of the Act, on the ground that as the case has been decided with the consent of parties before the National Lok Adalat and the share of petitioner i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- has already been paid to her and remaining amount which was awarded to the minor daughters were deposited in the Bank till their age of majority. Hence, this Court finds nothing wrong with the order impugned, and thus, no interference is required exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed in-limine.

6. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.)

26.09.2025 PN