JUDGMENT Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the deceased was an employee in the Basic Shiksha Education Department, Uttarkashi (Assistant Teacher in Primary School). At the time of accidental death, his age was 47 years as per records and he was getting the monthly gross salary of Rs.11,228/- at the time of losing his life. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.4,99,300/- along with 6% interest from the date of moving the application before it. The amount, so calculated, has been paid to the wife of the deceased only. She has come up before the Court seeking enhancement of such compensation on the ground then in the case of Sarla Verma, it was held that 50% of the salary should be added for calculating the base amount as the future prospects in awarding the compensation. This aspect has refuted by learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company relying on the precedent of Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another (2013) 9 SCC 65 , 2013 (2) UAD 228. where, in para 39, it was held as under:- The standardization of addition to income for future prospects shall held in achieving certainty in arriving at appropriate compensation. We approve the method that an addition of 50% of actual salary be made to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years and the addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years and no addition should be made where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the actual salary shall mean actual salary less tax. In the cases where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments, the actual income at the time of death without any addition to income for future prospects will be appropriate. A departure from the above principle can only be justified in extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases.” 2. In the cases where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments, the actual income at the time of death without any addition to income for future prospects will be appropriate. A departure from the above principle can only be justified in extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases.” 2. It is apparent that by this Full Court Constitutional Bench Judgment, the ratio of Sarla Verma Case was further clarified and it was held that in addition of a particular percentage, the score of future prospects shall vary on the age of the Government Employee where the Employee earns the annual income. It was further clarified that such salary means the remuneration after deducting the taxes due thereon. 3. Here, I find from the Lower Court Record that the claimant has nowhere clarified as to what amount of tax was being deducted from the gross salary of the deceased nor any tax return has been filed in order to highlight the aspect of the net income whereon the 30% should have been added to make it the base salary for awarding compensation. 4. So, on this score, I reject the contention of the appellant. 5. As regards the other scores, it has been held time and again in various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court that awarding of compensation does not tantamount to largesse or a windfall on the family of the deceased. The beneficial provision is to save the dependants of the deceased from being impelled to starvation. In this case, Smt. Anusuya Devi (wife of the deceased) has admittedly got the government job under the Dying-in-Harness rules besides she is getting the pension of the deceased and in addition thereto, all other dues were also received by her after the death of her husband. 6. So in view of what has been set forth above, I do not find any force in this appeal. The appeal is thus, dismissed.