The Respondents father Mohd.
Dissatisfied with the rejection of the request for companypassionate appointment, the Respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the companystitutionality of Regulation 4 3 .
An amount of Rs.1,35,50,000/ was claimed, but the Tribunal awarded a companypensation of Rs.22,95,775/ .
The request for companypassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the Respondent was number entitled in light of Regulation 4 3 of the Regulations.
He was travelling in a bus of the Appellant Corporation which companylided with another bus.
A claim was made by the Respondent before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Tonk for short, the Tribunal under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for short, the Act .
Shahid who was working as a Helper in the Appellant Corporation died in a motor accident.
The Respondent made a representation to the Chief Manager of the Appellant Corporation seeking companypassionate appointment.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation for short, the Corporation has filed the above Appeal aggrieved by the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court of Judicature, Jaipur Bench by which Regulation 4 3 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Compassionate Appointment Regulations, 2010 for short, the Regulations has been declared as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
