1. One Mohd Sharafat Khan (deceased) is stated to have died due to electrocu­tion on 26th April, 2005 at about 8:30 pm. It is stated by learned counsel for petitioner that the incident occurred due to grave negligence of the officers of Power Development Department when 11000 Kilowatts current was directly supplied to all residential houses resulting in death as also damage to all electrical appliances. It is further stated that Mohd Sharafat Khan died on spot and family members received minor injuries. Postmortem was conducted on the deceased and the report thereof reveals that his death occurred due to electrocution. The age of the deceased has been recorded as 25 years in the postmortem report, whereas in the pleadings his age has been shown as 24 years at the time of his death. Enquiry was conducted by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Uri, under the orders of District Magistrate, Barainulla. The enquiry report indicted the respondents and it was stated that the incident, in which the petitioner died was result of negligence on the part of respondents. 2. This petition is filed by the mother, the widow and minor children of the deceased. This petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 20.00 lacs to the petitioners as also Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation. On notice issued, objections have been filed by respondents, in which it is denied that the deceased died due to negligent act of the respondents. In para 3 of the objections/reply affidavit, it is pleaded by the respondents that the incident occurred on 26th April, 2005 around 8:30 pm. as electric current of 11000 Kilowatts surged into the transformer and when the deceased tried to disconnect service lines with naked hands and bear feet, he suffered electrocution. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. 4. It is submitted at bar by Mr. Ashraf, learned counsel for the petitioners that another person had died in the same incident and his legal representatives filed OWP. No. 472/2005 and this Court vide its judgment dated 4th July, 2008 allowed the said writ petition and directed the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 2,88,000/- with 6% interest from the date of judgment till its final realization. Learned counsel also submitted that the said judgment was challenged by the respondents before the Division Bench in LPA. No. 187/2009. No. 472/2005 and this Court vide its judgment dated 4th July, 2008 allowed the said writ petition and directed the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 2,88,000/- with 6% interest from the date of judgment till its final realization. Learned counsel also submitted that the said judgment was challenged by the respondents before the Division Bench in LPA. No. 187/2009. The learned counsel produced copy of judgment dated 03rd June, 2010, passed by Division Bench in the aforementioned LPA. Letters Patient Appeal filed by respondents has been dis­missed. Learned counsel submitted that petitioners are entitled to seek compensa­tion from the respondents. Copy of judgement of Division Bench produced by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record. 5. Mr. Chashoo, learned counsel for respondents submitted that as the dis­puted question of fact are involved in this writ petition, the petition is not maintain­able. Learned counsel referred to and relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Surnathi and Ors. : reported in 2000(6) SRJ 73 and submitted that in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. In view of the pleadings of the parties more particularly of the respondents, it is admitted that the incident occurred because of passing of 11000 Kilowatts energy through the transformer which supplied electricity to the residents of the area. The defence projected is that the deceased tried to disconnect service lines with naked hands and bear feet. By these pleadings, the respondents have admitted that the low tension lines which supplied electricity to the residents of the area got energized by 11000 Kilowatts. It was duty of the respondents to ensure that such a high voltage does not pass through low-tension-lines. What is said in defence in the reply affidavit is that after the incident occurred, the employees of the department went on spot and sealed the transformer at site. It was the duty of respondents to take extreme care and caution as the activity undertaken by the respondents is highly hazardous in nature and accordingly duty was cast on the respondents to take added caution. From the pleadings it becomes writ large on the face of record that respondents were negligent in performing their duties which resulted in the death. From the pleadings it becomes writ large on the face of record that respondents were negligent in performing their duties which resulted in the death. The highest authority at the district level viz Deputy Commissioner Bar'amulla had ordered enquiry which was got conducted through Sub Divisional Magistrate, Uri. The report as already stated indicted the respondents-department. The issue that respondents have been negligent has attained finality in view of the judgement of the Division Bench passed in LPA.No. 187/2009. The relevant para­graph of the judgment is reproduced as under:- "Having closely perused the impugned judgement and order and upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that there was negli­gence on the part of the appellants and same was duly supported by the independent enquiry so conducted under the directions of the District Magistrate, Baramulla." 7. The learned counsel for respondents submitted that the judgement has not been challenged, the same has attained finality. The finding recorded by the Division Bench of this Court about negligence of the respondents has also attained finality. Since the deceased died in same incident in which Khadim Hussain Mir died, it can not be said that disputed question of fact arise in this case. The judgement referred to and relied upon by learned counsel for respondents in the facts and circumstances of this case is of no help to him. The issue of negligence has been settled and it being apparent on the pleadings that the deceased died because of the negligent act of the respondents, they are duty bound to compensate the petitioners. 8. It is submitted at bar by learned counsel for the petitioner that deceased was a domestic worker and it is also submitted that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. However, there is no proof that deceased was earning 10,000/- per month. The Court in the aforementioned SWP.No. 472/2005, on guess work has held that the deceased therein as a laborer would have been earning Rs. 4500/- per month. It is also stated in the said judgment that the deceased would have been spending 1/3rd for his personal expenses. It is submitted by Mr. Wani, that law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. 4500/- per month. It is also stated in the said judgment that the deceased would have been spending 1/3rd for his personal expenses. It is submitted by Mr. Wani, that law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in AIR 2009, Supreme Court 3104 provides that in the event the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses should be one-third (I/3rd), where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, then deduction should be one-fourth (1/4th). Learned counsel submitted that number of dependents is four in this case, so the deduction should only be to the extent of one-fourth (1/4th) and not one-third (1/3rd). The learned counsel also referred to multiplier and submitted that as the deceased was 25 years of age the multiplier as per the second schedule is 17 and as per Supreme Court judgement supra it is 18. Deceased is said to have been working as domestic help, so his income is taken at Rs. 3500.00. On the basis of the aforementioned Supreme Court judgment one-fourth (1/4th) amount is to be deducted from amount of Rs. 3500.00 (Rupees three thousand and five hundred) per month and loss of depen­dency would be Rs. 2625.00 (Rupees two thousand six hundred and twenty five) per month. Multiplier of 18 would be applicable in this case. The petitioners are entitled to receive Rs. 5, 67,000.00 (Rupees five lacs and sixty seven thousand). 9. For the above staled reasons, this petition is allowed in the following maruier. Respondents are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,67,000.00 (Rupees five lacs and sixty seven thousand) to the petitioners within a period of four months from today and in the event the amount is not paid to the petitioners by the respondents within same period, the petitioner would be entitled to get interest @ 6% on the foresaid amount after four months till its final realization. It is directed that out of compensation amount one-sixth (1/6th) share shall be paid to mother of deceased, one-eighth (1/8th) to the widow and balance amount shall be kept in a fixed deposit in the name of minor children in a schedule Bank. The mother of minor children will be entitled to receive periodical interest that will accrue on the deposited amount. 11. The mother of minor children will be entitled to receive periodical interest that will accrue on the deposited amount. 11. For the above stated reasons, this petition is disposed of in the following manner; The respondents will ascertain quota which is available for direct recruits and promotees; respondents thereafter will consider the claim of in-charge AGMOs for regularization of their service on posts of AGMOs in their own quota. The PSC/DPC would consider the case of such in-charge AGMOs for being appointed by way of promotion on the said post. As and when the appropriate government orders are passed for their appointment by way of promotion they would become members of the gazetted service and their seniority will be fixed accordingly against the posts in their own quota. The petitioners seniority will be determined in their own quota in terms of Rule 24 Rules of 1956. The release of grade in favour of private respondents would neither make them members of gazetted service nor will confer any benefit on them to claim seniority from that date. Except in the event they are appointed by way of promotion on the higher post in their own quota, from an earlier date, viz when post has become available and they were working on such post on in-charge basis, then seniority is to be fixed from such earlier date. Disposed of.