# Sarita Devi v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 703
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-27
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 44795 of 2025
- **Bench:** Atul Sreedharan, Siddharth Nandan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sarita-devi-v-union-of-india-ors-54274
- **Pages:** 25

## Text

_Characters 0–39,977 of 75,499. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39977 for what follows._

2 All. Sarita Devi Vs. Union of India & Ors.
703

25. The next meeting was conducted on 08.05.2016, whereby a serious allegation was made
against three Members i.e. President, Secretary and one Member and they were expelled from
General Body and as referred above before such action is proposed, there must be some finding or
some substantial evidence that they were found guilty, however, there is no such declaration even
in brief in the resolution, though there were serious allegations that one expelled Member was
found in compromising position with a woman, therefore, manner under which President, Secretary
and one Member were expelled from General Body was also not proper.

26. In similar circumstances Court finds that there is no legally sustainable reason to conduct
election about six months before expiry of tenure and observations made in impugned order that
decision was taken to conduct election in a secret manner has substance. The Election should be
conducted in a fair manner, however, such fairness was missing.

27. In aforesaid circumstances Court finds that all three meetings referred above were not
conducted properly, therefore, there is no need to this Court to grant liberty to petitioner to place
these documents before concerned respondents as there is no error in impugned order and since
according to directions made in impugned order, fresh election has already been concluded,
therefore also, no ground exists to cause interference.

28. Accordingly, Writ Petition lacks merit, hence, it is dismissed.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 703
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

Writ C No. 44795 of 2025

Sarita Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether for want of quantification of the compensation amount, the determination of the same
can be justified in view of the provision of Section 4(1)(a) read with Section 5 of the Employees
Compensation Act, 1923 and whether the calculation of the compensation being accepted
without any opportunity to the claimant/petitioner amounts to post-decisional hearing, in
contravention to the principles of natural justice; whether the State is vicariously liable for
tortuous act resulting in death of the employee; and whether the notification issued in purported
exercise of power under Section 4(1B) can override Section 5 of the Act, 1923.
HEADNOTE
704 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 - ss.4(1)(a), 4(1B), 5, 20 - Constitution of India, Art.226 -
Scope of judicial review - claim for enhancement of compensation and damages - employee
died while performing his duty - postmortem report showed electrocution burn injury -
determination of compensation without quantification - acceptance of a figure given by the
Department, without providing any basis of such quantification, could not be accepted - no
notice was given to the petitioner to demonstrate the mitigating factors - method of calculating
wages - monthly wages - notification issued under Section 4(1B) vis-à-vis Section 5 of the Act,
1923 - field covered by special enactment i.e. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and
calculation required to be made keeping in mind statutory provision of Section 4(1)(a) read with
Section 5 - adjudicating authority could not grant compensation lesser than what statute
provides and even in case of ambiguity it was obligatory to consider factor or monthly wages
leading to higher compensation - power of Commissioner not restricted and compensation could
be enhanced irrespective of claim made by claimant - exercise of power under Article 226 as
judicial review - In case an employee is found to have committed a civil wrong, resulting in
death of another employee, the State has to be held vicariously liable and such action can be
subjected to judicial scrutiny in exercise of its power of judicial review under the Constitution -
tortuous act by employees entitled claimants to damages - involvement of public functionaries
and violation of fundamental rights - life recognised as basic human right and its violation
actionable under Article 226 - State failed in its duty and held vicariously liable and under
constitutional liability to pay damages.

Held: Case arose out of the death of the petitioner's husband, a railway employee, who died
while performing his duty. Postmortem report and departmental record showed electrocution
burn injury. Shutdown was not done resulting in electrocution, which demonstrated negligence
of the Department and the same being the main cause of fall from the ladder resulting in death -
Compensation quantified at Rs. 10,16,700/- without disclosing any basis of such quantification
and without following the statutory mandate of Section 4(1)(a) read with Section 5 of the Act,
1923 was erroneous - Only method of calculation/computation of compensation is as provided
under Section 4 read with Section 5 and adoption of any other criteria resulting in lesser
compensation could not be accepted under the Scheme of the Act, which is a beneficial
legislation - Adjudicating Authority could not grant a compensation which was lesser than what
the statute provides and it was obligatory to consider the factor or monthly wages which leads
to higher compensation - Acceptance of a figure given by the Department, without providing any
basis of such quantification, could not be accepted and without putting the claimant to notice
amounted to violation of principles of natural justice - It was admitted position that no notice
was given to the petitioner to demonstrate the mitigating factors and respondents could not
justify the basis of such quantification - On admitted facts, shutdown was not done resulting in
electrocution, which established tortious act and rendered the State vicariously liable - Where
public functionaries are involved and right to life was violated, remedy under Article 226 is
available - Notification dated 03.01.2020 could not override the statutory provision of Section 5
and where the monthly wages admissible to the deceased employee was higher, the same was
required to be considered - Beneficial legislation was required to be interpreted to achieve the
object of providing just compensation - Court applied the statutory formula by taking the
monthly wage at ₹39,900, calculating 50% thereof as ₹19,950, applying the relevant factor for
age 55 as 135.56, and thus arriving at compensation of approximately ₹27,04,422 (₹19,950 ×
135.56), thereby demonstrating that the amount of ₹10,16,700 was grossly incorrect -
Impugned determination was set aside and matter was remitted for fresh determination of
compensation as per Section 4 read-with Section 5 of the Act, 1923 after affording opportunity
along with consideration of damages and interest. Court held that the family belonged to a
middle-class background and, in the absence of the sole breadwinner, had suffered significant
financial hardship, and therefore applied the principle of restitutio in integrum, holding that the
claimants are entitled to such compensation as would, as far as money can, place them in the
same position in which they would have been had the wrongful death not occurred. Court
2 All. Sarita Devi Vs. Union of India & Ors.
705
directed that the adjudicating authority may also consider the grant of damages for the tortuous
act of the employees of the department, keeping in mind other mitigating factors. Court further
directed that the petitioner/claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the
date of death of the employee, i.e., the date of occurrence of the accident, on the amount of
compensation as determined in accordance with law. It was further provided that a conventional
sum of ₹1,00,000/- shall be added and paid over and above the quantifiable compensation, to be
determined by the Commissioner appointed under Section 20 of the Employees Compensation
Act, 1923. (Paras 9, 14, 15, 19, 20, 22, 23) (E-5)
CASE LAW CITED
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.T. Somasekharaiah (1994 LLR 251 (KAR));
General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176;
Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (2001) 8 SCC 197;
Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das (2000) 2 SCC 465;
Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 141;
Bhim Singh v. State of J&K (1985) 4 SCC 677;
People's Union for Democratic Rights v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 265;
People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Police Commissioner, Delhi Police Headquarters (1989) 4 SCC 730;
Saheli, A Women's Resources Centre v. Commissioner of Police (1990) 1 SCC 422;
Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P. (1994) 6 SCC 565;
P. Rathinam v. Union of India 1991 SCC (Cri) 228;
Death of Sawinder Singh Grower, In re 1994 SCC (Cri) 1464;
Inder Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 702;
D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. (1997) 1 SCC 416;
Khadak Singh Vs. State of U.P AIR 1963 SC 1295
State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati AIR 1962 SC 933;
State of Gujarat v. Memon Mahomed Haji Hasam AIR 1967 SC 1885;
Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore (1977) 4 SCC 358;
N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of A.P. (1994) 6 SCC 205;
State of Maharashtra v. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke (1995) 5 SCC 659;
V. Krishnakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors 2015 9 SCC 388
H.L. Trehan v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 764;
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248;
State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei 1967 2 SCR 625;
Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 664;
Pandit Ram Narain v. State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 18;
East India Hotels Ltd. v. Union of India (2001) 1 SCC 284;
Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 83;
State of Maharashtra v. Marwanjee F. Desai (2002) 2 SCC 318;
Employees' Provident Fund Commissioner v. Official Liquidator of Esskay Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2011) 10 SCC
727;
M/s Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (1989) 4 SCC 378;
ONGC Ltd. v. Afcons Gunanusa JV (2024) 4 SCC 481;
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) v. Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1652;
Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 527;
Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. Workmen AIR 1961 SC 647;
Jeewanlal Ltd. v. Appellate Authority (1984) 4 SCC 356;
Lalappa Lingappa v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. AIR 1981 SC 852;
S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager (2003) 4 SCC 27;
706 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Acts
Employees Compensation Act, 1923;
Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Compensation; Electrocution; Workplace accident; Beneficial legislation; Quantification; Monthly wages;
Relevant factor; Vicarious liability; Tortious act; Public law remedy; Natural justice; Audi alteram partem; Just
compensation; Harmonious construction; restitutio in integrum.
CASE ARISING FROM
From the order dated 29.12.2023 passed in W.C. Case No. 15/2023 (Smt. Sarita Devi v. Divisional Railway
Manager).
Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Mohammad Parwez Khan, Raj Kumar Singh, Vipul Yadav.
Advs For Respondents: A.S.G.I., Dinesh Varun.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth Nandan, J.)

1. Heard Shri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dinesh Varun,
learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By the consent of the parties the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage
itself.

Facts

The admitted facts in the present case are that-

1. Shri Vinod Kumar Joshi (husband of the petitioner) was employed as Senior Technician
(Electrical) under the Senior Section Engineer (Electrical)/Renukoot. On 08.04.2023, at
approximately 7.30 AM, a power outage was reported in the Renukoot main colony and on being
reported, the Senior Section Engineer (Electrical)/Renukoot directed the deceased along with one
Shri Vinod Kumar (Senior Technician), at 8.00 AM to rectify that fault. During patrolling, the team
identified a burnt 11 KV HT fuse near the power house and after request of shutdown of the 11 KV
HT line at 9.35 AM, the deceased proceeded to climb the utility pole/ladder, equipped with
necessary safety gear including gloves and helmet, while his colleague, Mr. Vinod Singh secured
ladder from below.

2. As per the report of the Senior Section Engineer, East Central Railway, Renukoot &
Chopan and statement of Shri Vinod Singh (co-worker), at approximately 9.45 AM while
2 All. Sarita Devi Vs. Union of India & Ors.
707
performing his official duties, the deceased fell from the pole. He was immediately rushed to
HINDALCO hospital by railway staff, where he was declared dead and an F.I.R. was also lodged;
and a postmortem examination was conducted.

As per postmortem report, the following ante-mortem injury was found:-

"1. Electrocution burn inj. of size 25 cm x 14 cm on Rt. Forearm 4 cm

below
Rt. Elbow.

2. Electrocution burn inj. of size 7cm x 1 cm, 10 cm below cimbilians.

3. Swelling of size 7 cm x 5 cm on Rt. Side Skull (Pariatal bone), 10 cm

 above
Rt. Underlying bone fracture, & about 50 ml blood clot underneath
the inj.

4. Exit wound - Electrocuted burn inj. of size 2 cm x 1 cm of Nav on lt.

sole
of."

3. It is admitted by the respondents that in a joint investigation, it was found that the incident
was a workplace accident, occurring in the course of performance of duty. The perusal of the
postmortem report also indicates that there was an exit wound of size 2 cm x 1 cm and
electrocution burn injury of size 7 cm x 1 cm, 10 cm below cimbilians; which has not been disputed
by the respondents, as such the accident was clearly attributed to the electrocution.

4. The petitioner was given a compensation of Rs. 10,16,700/- but however she was not
satisfied with the ex-parte computation and accordingly has assailed the said computation of the
compensation. The present writ petition has been filed for enhancement of the same, since no basis
for the computation was either provided by the respondents or by the Presiding Officer, in W.C.
Case No. 15/2023(D) (Smt. Sarita Devi Vs. Divisional Railway Manager), in its order dated
29.12.2023.

Issues-

(i) Whether for want of quantification of the compensation amount, the determination of the
same by the order dated 29.12.2023 can be justified in view of the provision of Section 4(1)(a) read
with Section 5 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923; and also whether, in the factual context,
petitioner is entitled to enhancement, by way of damages.

(ii) Whether the calculation of the Railway Authority regarding the compensation being
accepted without any opportunity to the claimant/petitioner and treating the same to be final,
amounts to post-decisional hearing, in contravention to the principles of natural justice.

(iii) Whether the notification issued in purported exercise of power under Section 4(1B)
regarding the fixation of "monthly wages" by the Government shall supersede Section 5 of the Act,
1923.

Argument - (Issue No.1)
708 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that neither the evidence which was placed
on record was considered nor any opportunity of hearing was provided, prior to accepting the exparte compensation as determined by the respondent-Authorities to be Rs. 10,16,700/- and being
directed to be released in favour of the petitioner; though the "relevant factors" for determination of
the compensation were not taken into account by the authorities.

2. He has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation Vs. B.T. Somasekharaiah to contend that apart from the mitigating factors for award
of compensation under Section 4 of the Act, 1923, the Commissioner has power to award
compensation more than what is claimed by the workman, if the facts do warrant such an award in
the form of damages.

3. He has further contended that from the perusal of the postmortem report, it is evident that
negligence was that of the employees of the Department, since the shutdown of the 11 KV HT Line
was not made, which resulted in the death of the deceased; and as such the State was vicariously
liable.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the compensation was
quantified as per the mandate of Section 4 of the Act, 1923 and has further submitted that apart
from the aforesaid compensation, all admissible retirement benefits payable to on-duty deceased
employee was paid, to the tune of Rs. 21,33,567/-; and further maximum admissible ex-gratia as
per Circular no. RBE No. 139/2016 dated 25.11.2016 i.e. Rs. 25,00,000/- was also paid; and as
such the acceptance of the compensation amount, as computed by them, was completely justifiable.
However, they had not disputed the postmortem report and the cause of death with respect to the
deceased employee on-duty.

Discussion- (Issue No.1)

1. In view of the admitted facts that the deceased who was an employee of the Department,
had died while he was performing his duty and the postmortem report clearly shows that the
deceased suffer electrocution burn injury; it demonstrate the negligence of the Department and the
same being the main cause of fall from the ladder, due to which the husband of the petitioner died.
Now, it is to be seen, if the State is vicariously liable and whether the adjudicating authority has
failed to take the same into account, while determining the compensation and as such in the
aforesaid background, the moot question which is to be considered is, the basis of quantification of
the compensation.

2. At this juncture, it will be relevant to quote Section 4(1)(a) and Section 5, which are as
below:

"[4. Amount of compensation.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of
compensation shall be as follows, namely:-

(a) where death results from the injury an amount equal to [fifty per cent.] of the monthly
wages of the deceased [employee] multiplied by the relevant factor; or an amount of [one lakh and
twenty thousand rupees], whichever is more;
2 All. Sarita Devi Vs. Union of India & Ors.
709

5. [Method of calculating wages.- [In this Act and for the purposes thereof the expression
"monthly wages" means me amount of wages deemed to be payable for a month's service (whether
the wages are payable by the month or by whatever other period or at piece rates), and calculated]
as follows, namely:-

(a) where the 1[employee] has, during a continuous period of not less than twelve months
immediately preceding the accident, been in the service of the employer who is liable to pay
compensation, the monthly wages of the 1[employee] shall be one-twelfth of the total wages which
have fallen due for payment to him by the employer in the last twelve months of that period;

[(b) where the whole of the continuous period of service immediately preceding the
accident during which the 1[employee] was in the service of the employer who is liable to pay the
compensation was less than one month, the monthly wages of the 1[employee] shall be the average
monthly amount which, during the twelve months immediately preceding the accident, was being
earned by a 1[employee] employed on the same work by the same employer, or, if there was no
[employee] so employed, by a 1[employee] employed on similar work in the same locality;]

[(c)] [in other cases [including cases in which it is not possible for want of necessary
information to calculate the monthly wages under clause (b)]], the monthly wages shall be thirty
times the total wages earned in respect of the last continuous period of service immediately
preceding the accident from the employer who is liable to pay compensation, divided by the
number of days comprising such period.

Explanation.-A period of service shall, for the purposes of [this [section]] be deemed to
be continuous which has not been interrupted by a period of absence from work exceeding fourteen
days."

3. The perusal of the aforesaid provision indicated that an amount equal to 50% of the monthly
wages of the deceased employee, is to be multiplied by the relevant factors, where death results
from an injury.

4. Now, we proceed to examine the Scheme of the Act, to the extent it relates to the
quantification of amount of compensation. Section 4 (1)(a) of the Act, 1923 clearly prescribes that
in case of death, an amount equal to 50% of the "monthly wages" of the deceased employees has to
be multiplied by the relevant factor.

5. Explanation 1 to Section 4 of the Act, 1923 states that for the purposes of clause (a),
"relevant factor", in relation to an employee means the factor specified in the second column of
Schedule IV; against the entry in the first column of the Schedule specifying the number of years
which are same as the completed years of the age of the employee on his last birthday immediately
preceding the date on which the compensation fell due.

6. We find that the respondent-Railways had prepared an accident report which has been
annexed as Annexure 4 to the Affidavit filed with the aforesaid Writ Petition and the pay of the
deceased employee has been clearly mentioned as Rs. 39,900/-. For ready reference the same is
pasted below:-
710 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. It is also borne out from the record that in the accident report which has been appended as
Annexure 2, the age of the deceased has been mentioned as 55 years at the time of the death. For
ready reference the Accident Report is pasted below:-
2 All. Sarita Devi Vs. Union of India & Ors.
711

8. In the aforesaid admitted facts, the factor as mentioned in Schedule IV in case of an
employee who is 55 years of age, is "135.56". Based on the aforesaid data the following calculation
emerges:

Monthly wages
Rs. 39,900/-
50% of Monthly Wage
Rs. 19,950/-
Factor, as per Schedule IV for 55 year of age
135.56
Amount of compensation
19,950 x 135.56 = Rs. 27,04,422/-

9. On a pointed query to the counsel for the respondents as to what method was adopted for
computing the compensation, he could not dispute that the mandatory provision of Section 4 read-
712 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with Section 5, is the only method of calculation/computation of compensation; and adoption of
any other criteria for computation of compensation, especially if it results in lesser compensation,
than what is prescribed under Section 4(1)(a) read with Section 5 of the Act, cannot be accepted
under the Scheme of the Act, which is a beneficial legislation. He also could not dispute that the
grant of compensation to a tune of Rs. 10,16,700/-, is an incorrect calculation while looking at the
beneficial nature of the legislation in question, the provision for any other method of calculation
resulting in a lesser computation, has to be superseded by the calculation which is in consonance of
Section 4(1)(a) read-with Section 5 of the Act, 1923.

10. The Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Kerela State Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas and Ors. while concluding on the question of "just"
compensation held that the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established
method of ensuring a "just" compensation, which will make for uniformity and certainty of the
award. A departure from this method can only be justified in rare and extraordinary circumstances
and very exceptional cases.

11. We may gainfully take a clue from the judgment in the case of Lata Wadhwa and Ors.
Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.; when multiple claims were raised by the heirs/survivors of an
unfortunate accident, resulting in death on account of burn injury to several persons, the Apex
Court appointed Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, former Chief Justice of India having expertise in the
matter, to determine the compensation, keeping in mind principles enunciated by the Apex Court in
various judgments till date.

12. Justice Chandrachud, adopted the multiplier method and on that basis determined quantum
of compensation, as pertaining to various deaths/injuries which was suffered; and the said method
for determination of quantum of compensation, was thereafter approved by the Apex Court.

13. The Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgment approved the method of quantification of
compensation on the basis of dependency of 60% of the annual income and thereafter applied
different multipliers, depending upon their age. It also approved a conventional figure to
compensate the variables which were not quantifiable. It is also noteworthy that the other benefits
which were payable to the employees apart from the compensation, was not taken into
consideration, while determining the compensation. The benefit already granted to the dependents
of the deceased were not taken into account as the quantification of the compensation, was required
to be made independent of the other statutory rights and the entitlements.

14. However in the present case, since the field is covered by the special enactment i.e. The
Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, the calculation has to be made keeping in mind the statutory
provision of Section 4(1)(a) read-with Section 5 of the Act, 1923. The said legislation being a
beneficial legislation, the object of the Act is to provide an undisputed methodology for coming to
the conclusion pertaining to the amount of the compensation payable. However, this does not
entitle the adjudicating authority or act as a hindrance, to the power of the Commissioner to award
more compensation. There maybe an instance where the claimant not knowing the provisions of the
enactment or aware to his rights, makes a claim for a lesser compensation; but the Court finds that
irrespective of the claim made by the claimant, the adjudicating authority cannot grant a
2 All. Sarita Devi Vs. Union of India & Ors.
713
compensation which is lesser than what the statue provides. Even in case of ambiguity as to the
applicability of the "factor", it is obligatory on the Adjudicating Authority to consider the "factor"
or the "monthly wages" which leads to a higher compensation and under no circumstances a
compensation less than what is provided under the Act can be awarded by the Commissioner.

15. The aforesaid interpretation is in consonance with the purpose and the objective of the
legislation and can also be read to give ample powers to the Commissioner to award further
damages, considering the facts and circumstances of each case and resultantly enhance the
compensation.

16. The Apex Court while dealing with the issue with respect to public law remedies and the
award of compensation under Article 226 of Constitution of India in the case of Chairman,
Railway Board and others v. Chandrima Das(Mrs) and others. laid down a ratio that the public
law remedies has also been extended to realm of Tort and the court can award compensation to the
petitioner, who suffer personal injuries, amounting to tortuous act at the hand of officers of the
Government. It discarded the contention that for such a remedy, the petitioner has to approach a
Civil Court and a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not maintainable. The Apex
Court held that where public functionaries are involved and matters relate to violation of a
fundamental right or the enforcement of public duties, the remedy would still be available under the
public law, notwithstanding that a suit can be filed for damages under private law.

17. The learned counsel for the respondents had also contended that as far as the enhancement
sought by the petitioner in the amount of compensation to Rs. 60,00,000/- is concerned, the
Department is only liable to pay the compensation as provided under the Act, 1923 and for any
enhancement in the form of damages, the Government cannot be held vicariously liable.

18. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the functions of the State
in a welfare State, is not limited to carry out the obligations as provided under the statute but it also
has to take the responsibility being vicariously liable, so that the essential components of the
Government machinery i.e. their employees, if found to have committed an act of tort, the
Government, of which they are the employees, can be subjected and held to be vicariously liable in
providing damages to the person wronged by the employees.

19. We find that the report submitted by the Department clearly states that the deceased
employee had asked for shutdown but clearly the same was not done by other employees of the
State Government, resulting in electrocution of the deceased employee, which was the factor of the
fall from the ladder and resulting in his death.

20. Aforesaid admitted position clearly establishes all the ingredients of the commission of
"tort" against the deceased person, so as to entitle the heirs/claimants to the relief or damages.

21. Now, we proceed to the other objection of the State Counsel, to the effect that considering
the nature of the liability, the relief is not available to the petitioner, by invocation of the
extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
714 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

22. The exercise of constitutional power by the High Court under Article 226 can be
categorized as power of "judicial review". In case an employee is found to have committed a civil
wrong, resulting in death of another employee, the State in the opinion of this Court has to be held
vicariously liable and such action accordingly can be subjected to judicial scrutiny in exercise of its
power of judicial review under the Constitution. Especially, when the right to life, has been brutally
violated and as such those who can be treated as "authority", within the meaning of Article 12, can
be made amenable to the jurisdiction of this court and can be subjected to scrutiny on the
touchstone of the constitutional mandates. The causing of injuries, which amounted to tortuous act,
was compensated by this Court in many of its decisions beginning from Rudul Sah v. State of
Bihar. (See also Bhim Singh v. State of J&K, Peoples' Union for Democratic Rights v. State of
Bihar, Peoples' Union for Democratic Rights v. Police Commr., Delhi Police Headquarters,
Saheli, A Women's Resources Centre v. Commr. of Police, Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of
U.P., P. Rathinam v. Union of India, Death of Sawinder Singh Grower In re, Inder Singh v.
State of Punjab and D.K. Basu v. State of W.B.)

23. 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. In
Khadak Singh Vs. State of U.P , the term "life" was held to indicate something more than an
animal existence; and its violation can give a cause of action to be remedied by envocation of
Article 226 of the Constitution.

24. The employees of the State at times, as in the present case, perform hazardous duties
which even raises threat to their life, however, such duties are undertaken with a firm belief that the
State shall be responsible for their "life" as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
and various human right declaration, to which India is also a party; but however, in the present
case, the State has failed, and as such is vicariously liable, and is under a constitutional liability, to
pay damages.

25. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Vidyawati, it was held that Government will be vicariously
liable for the tortuous act of its employee. Reference may also be made to the decisions of this
Court in State of Gujarat Vs. Memon Mahomed Haji Hasam and Basavva Kom Dyamangouda
Patil Vs. State of Mysore. These Principles were reiterated in N. Nagendra Rao & Co. Vs. State
of A.P. and again in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke.

Conclusion

1. We are constrained to note that the Department is guilty of ignoring the standards of normal
safety measures and resultantly the negligence ultimately led to death of the sole bread winner of
the family. In absence of quantification by Adjudicatory Authority, the acceptance of a figure given
by the Department, without providing any basis of such a quantification, cannot be accepted. It is
no doubt that the amount of compensation has to be determined as per the statutory provisions of
section 4(1)(a) read with Section 5 of the Act, 1923 which itself contemplates i.e. the amount equal
2 All. Sarita Devi Vs. Union of India & Ors.
715
to 50% of the "monthly wages" of the deceased employee, is to be multiplied by the relevant
factors. Apart from the same, in consideration of the various judgments referred herein above, we
find that no exhaustive list can be provided but for certainty, the following points are to be kept in
consideration, while determining the compensation as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act
1923 and to provide for damages, in exceptional cases:-

(i) It has to be taken into account, as to the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependents
and the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remaining of his life, the amount
that he would have attributed to the dependents during that period.

(ii) Apart from the determination as provided under Section 4(1)(a) read with Section 5 of the
Act, 1923, it may also be seen that the said capital if invested at the prevailing rate of interest,
which is acceptable to a stable economy, which would have been utilized in the form of saving; and
which is expected from an employee to invest for better future of his children/family members; but
for his death, it being not invested.

(iii) The chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income i.e. an over
all picture that matters, should be kept in mind while making the computation or assessment for
reaching to a "just" compensation viz. a viz. the loss suffered.

(iv) The question of extent of harm/loss/pain/hardship, impact of inflation, may also be taken
into consideration. [Ref: V. Krishnakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.]

2. In view of the aforesaid, the Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and it is held
that the quantification of the amount of compensation, as provided under Section 4(1)(a) read with
Section 5 of the Act, 1923 being erroneous, is required to be re-determined by the adjudicating
authority and after doing so, he may also consider the grant of damages for the tortuous act of the
employees of the department, keeping in mind other mitigating factors, as indicated hereinabove.

3. It is also provided that after the aforesaid determination, the petitioner/claimants shall be
entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of death of the employee i.e. occurrence of the
accident, on the amount, after deducting Rs. 10,16,700/-, which has already been paid to the
petitioners/claimants, till the date of actual payment of entire amount.

Argument- (Issue No.2)

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that though, the order dated 29.11.2023
records that certain evidences were filed on affidavit but since there was no computation of the
compensation of the amount in terms of Section 4(1)(a) read with Section 5 of the Act 1923,
therefore, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to plead his case pertaining to "relevant
factors" that were essential for the claim for damages viz-a-viz enhancement of of compensation
and the Adjudicatory Authority without such computation and opportunity accepted the
compensation amount of Rs. 10,16,700/- to be a "just" compensation; which amounts to denial of
principles of natural justice and as such was a post decisional hearing; and failure to observe audi
alteram partem rule at pre-decisional stage, vitiates the determination of compensation and
716 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accordingly they are entitled to a higher compensation which has been prayed for in the present
writ petition.

2. He has relied on the ratio propounded in H.L. Trehan Vs. Union of India to contend that
post-decisional opportunity of hearing does not subserve rules of natural justice and the authority
who embarks upon post-decisional hearing will naturally proceed with the closest trend and there is
hardly any chance of getting a proper consideration of the representation at such post-decisional
hearing. He has further relied upon the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and submitted
that any violation to the principles of audi alteram partem rule will lead to paralysing the
administrative process and the court must make every effort to salvage this cardinal rule to the
maximum extent permissible in the given case. He has relied on the following excerpt from the
judgment of Maneka Gandhi (supra).

"The Court must make every effort to salvage this cardinal rule to the maximum extent
permissible in a given case. It must not be forgotten that "natural justice is pragmatically flexible
and is amenable to capsulation under the compulsive pressure of circumstances". The audi alteram
partem rule is not cast in a rigid mould and judicial decisions establish that it may suffer
situational modifications. The core of it must, however, remain, namely, that the person affected
must have a reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and
not an empty public relations exercise."

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have contended that they have determined
the compensation as per Section 4 of the Act, 1923 but on a pointed query as to the basis of the
quantification of the compensation, they could not state, as to what factors were considered while
determining the compensation.

Discussion- (Issue No.2)

1. It is to be determined in the facts of the present case, whether the petitioner was at all put to
notice or given an opportunity either by the Department or the Adjudicatory Authority, to
substantiate their claim by providing cogent evidence, which according to them would have
substantiated their claim regarding various factors, which ought to have been considered prior to
quantification of the compensation and also towards their claim for damages, for which State is
vicariously liable, as such for the enhancement of their compensation, itself.

2. It is also pertinent to note that even in case, the petitioner would have failed to justify the
factors for computing or quantifying the compensation, was it justified on part of the Department or
the Adjudicatory Authority, to straightaway provide or accept a figure, without looking into the
basis of the quantification of the compensation. The respondents, in their instructions, could not
point out as to what were the factors which formed the basis of the figure of Rs. 10,16,700/-; and
the learned Standing Counsel also could not point out as to whether before the determination by the
Adjudicatory Authority in its order dated 29.11.2023, did he made efforts either to put the
petitioners to notice on the question of quantification or by itself, it considered the basis on which
the Department has determined the said compensation.
2 All.