The Allahabad High Court has raised serious concerns regarding the process adopted in determining compensation in a case involving the death of a railway employee who was electrocuted while on duty.
The Court held that fixing the amount of compensation without granting the affected party an opportunity of hearing is contrary to the principles of natural justice.
The Court clarified that
“In the present case, there is involvement of public functionaries and on admitted facts itself there is violation of fundamental rights, that being so, since “life” has been recognized as a basic human right, which has been interpreted by the courts in various decision relating to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, we find State is vicariously liable and remedy for damages, resulting in enhancement of the compensation can be claimed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
The order was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan while allowing a petition filed by Sarita Devi.
According to the facts of the case, the petitioner’s husband, Vinod Kumar Joshi, was working as a Senior Technician (Electrical) with the East Central Railway. On April 8, 2023, he was directed to repair the wire and reinstate power supply in the Renukoot Railway Colony.
It was stated that after detecting a fault in the fuse of an 11 KV HT line, he climbed the pole with safety equipment, but suddenly fell during the course of work. He was immediately taken to a hospital where doctors declared him dead.
The post-mortem report revealed burn injuries caused by electric current and a severe head injury. A joint inquiry also acknowledged that the incident occurred during duty at the workplace and that the cause of death was electrocution.
Subsequently, the railway administration awarded compensation of Rs.10,16,700 to the petitioner under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. However, terming the amount inadequate, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking enhancement of compensation.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that while determining the compensation, neither the available evidence was properly considered nor was the petitioner given an opportunity of hearing. The amount was unilaterally fixed by the department.
It was further argued that the post-mortem report clearly indicated that the 11 KV HT line had not been shut down, which resulted in the employee’s electrocution. Therefore, the State was liable to provide relief for the negligence of its officials.
On the other hand, the Railway contended that the compensation had been calculated strictly in accordance with Section 4 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. It was also pointed out that the family of the deceased employee had already received service benefits amounting to Rs. 21,33,567 and an ex gratia amount up to Rs. 25 lakh.
After examining the facts of the case, the Court held that compensation must be assessed strictly in accordance with Sections 4 and 5 of the Employees’ Compensation Act. On perusal of the record, the Court noted that the estimated compensation worked out to around Rs. 27,04,422, which was substantially higher than the 10,16,700 paid by the Railways.
The Court emphasized that
“The amount fixed by the circular dated 03.01.2020, can only get a benchmark that the calculation cannot be with a lesser amount; but where the “monthly wages” admissible to the deceased employee was higher, the same shall be considered, for determining the “Amount of Compensation” under Section 4 of the Act, 1923.”
The Court observed that the Employees’ Compensation Act is a welfare legislation and that other service or ex gratia benefits cannot be deducted while computing compensation under the Act.
It also reiterated that when a decision affects a person’s civil rights, an opportunity of hearing must be provided beforehand. Determining compensation without notice or hearing is unjust. The Court further held that since the employee died during the course of duty, the State bears vicarious liability.
Finally, the Court remitted the matter to the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner, directing that the compensation be re-determined after giving the petitioner an opportunity to produce evidence.
The Court also directed that the final compensation amount be paid with 12% annual interest from the date of the accident, along with an additional conventional sum of Rs. 1 lakh which is to be determined by the Commissioner appointed under Section 20 of the Act, 1923.
Case: Sarita Devi vs Union of India and 3 others
Date of Order: 27.02.2026
