(:0I1Sid€I'€d as the magma of the fatnily of théu
employee exceads mere than Rs.'?2,€}OO/~». ~ ff.
4. in briegthe facts are, "
was working as a Linemafi <).§ia:fle
respondent. He died 9:'hfle 0;": 6~fi-«{?§4'20'€)VE£~§. The
petitianer claimed which
has been rejecté§%:§j’- 0:11: income of the
famiiy cf *éxc%ds more than
Rs.?2,QG<j};.TA 3 é
5. the: petitioner has fiied
this v5§’:’if. ~
.__ieamed Ceunsel for the petitioner
<:<jr;fi:iid:c§~é'A–.'–1;};1é;f t1}e impugned endarsement cammt be
Tfsust3xi:_1<§(%.:_ ii} law. He also submitteé that the second
A 'v~:L:*:§$jbé;néent has; rajected the claim of the petitions}; on
tlig gounzli 12118 income of the famiiy of the deceased
flwemployee exceeds more than Rs.'?2,GG€}/-, which is
Ll/.
8. I have carefuily ztcmsiderfid the: sulpmiseiéfiiraié
made by ‘C116 Iearned counsel fer the pafiies.–. V
9. Tha point that arises for my A¢or;sid¢ra::aAm.Lis,, 7
Whether the mpugneci egdofsafient
merrerm?
19. It is re}evaI1;1t._i§g*: :1:’_$:~te3 if di$1fi1te that
pet.iti0ner’s father wa$,..x£§;*1d%3_§§ in the
office of died while in
se3:’v’ic:e. “”” M : ‘;;e V 5. comgassionate
a§}p0i11t%§r;e;1?; document to Show that
except a not own anjy-“;h;’ng ané his
brothfir” is résidiiig sfiparatfily. Insyite of that, the
fiecggld _ i;§?fs;f;€>né&nt has rajected the Ciaim, er: the
‘Afiléome cf the famifiy cf the déceased
V em15ifiyeé:&.é:x:$eeds mare than Fi*.s.’72,f.”}f}0/~, which is
H ‘A fotafily iiibsrrect and baseiess. Therefore, tha impugned
–. -8$1(:Z1O’I”AS€I’:{1€}f1i carmet be sastained in 1311:.
L//,