2025:JHHC:29466 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.2006 of 2022 .... Maya Devi, (aged about 48 years), w/o-Narendra Singh, resident of E-249, 18, Near Panchmandir, Patratau Thermal Power Station, Patratu, P.O.-PTPS, P.S.-Patratu, District-Ramgarh, Jharkhand-829119 .… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S.-Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh, Jharkhand 3. The Chairman-cum-Chief Managing Director, Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited, Engineering Building (H.E.C.), P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand 4. The Chairman-cum-Chief Managing Director, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Engineering Building (H.E.C.), P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand 5. The Managing Director, Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited, Engineering Building (H.E.C.), P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand 6. The Managing Director, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Engineering Building (H.E.C.), P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand 7. The General Manager (Personnel & General Adm.), Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited, Engineering Building (H.E.C.), P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand 8. The General Manager (Personnel & General Adm.), Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Engineering Building (H.E.C.), P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand 9. M/s. Topsgroup Risk Intelligence Pvt. Ltd., 276, Sultan Sadan, Lane No. 3, Western Marg, Saidulajab, Saket, New Delhi-30, INDIA .... Respondents .... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv. ` : Mr. Harshit Sahay, Adv. For the State : Mr. K.K.Singh, SC-V For the JUVNL : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Adv. .... 15/23.09.2025 1. Heard the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief:- “To direct the respondents for granting the compensation to the petitioner in the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) due to death of his son by electrocution from the high voltage electric current wire during course of his duty.” 3. From the arguments and pleadings, it appears that the mother has approached this Court for claiming compensation on the death of her son, namely, Late Brajesh Kumar Singh, who has died due to electrocution on 25.09.2018 while repairing a fuse. Accordingly, an F.I.R. has been lodged by the mother of the deceased being Patratu P.S. Case No.287 of 2018 on 26.09.2018. The post mortem 2025:JHHC:29466 2 W.P.(C) No.2006 of 2022 has been conducted on 26.09.2018 and post mortem report suggests that the cause of death is due to electrocution. 4. It further appears that the work has been outsourced by the respondents through a private agency, namely, M/s. Topsgroup Risk Intelligence Pvt. Ltd. i.e. respondent No.9. 5. Notice has been issued to respondent No.9 but in spite of valid service of notice, nobody appears on behalf of respondent No.9. 6. The petitioner has claimed compensation on the strength of resolution No.643/Ranchi dated 21.04.2022 which has been brought on record by filing rejoinder to the counter affidavit dated 25.07.2023. As per the scheme, the petitioner is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakh). 7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that her son has died due to the electrocution while working for the respondent authorities and as such she is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakh). It has further been submitted that even if he is treated as a private individual, she is still entitled to compensation. 8. On the contrary, learned counsel for the JUVNL has opposed the prayer stating that work was being done through outsourcing and he has relied upon an office order No.105 dated 16.01.2015 passed by the respondent-JUVNL which relates to the compensation to employee and it has been stated that since he was not a direct employee of the respondents, as such this circular is not applicable. 9. So far as office order No.1119 dated 25.09.2006 is concerned i.e. regarding the common man and as per that office order, the compensation amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is payable to the petitioner which is for the general public. But there is an authority to decide the compensation. The matter should have been placed before the authority and the authority is only competent to decide the same. 10. So far as the claim of the petitioner based upon the resolution dated 21.04.2022 is concerned, the said circular is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case as the death is of the year 2018. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record it appears that; i. it is an admitted fact that the death is due to electrocution. ii. he death occurred while he was working on the pole to repair the fuse. iii. she has not been paid any compensation till date. 12. Although, if the compensation could have been paid then the resolution dated 21.04.2022 may not be applied. Since till date compensation has not been paid, hence, claim is still alive and if any enhancement is made then the enhanced 2025:JHHC:29466 3 W.P.(C) No.2006 of 2022 compensation is payable. It is a beneficial legislation and it has to be interpreted accordingly. 13. In view of above discussion, this Court directs the respondent No.3- The Chairman-cum-Chief Managing Director, JUVNL, Ranchi to pay the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakh) to the petitioner within four weeks from today, failing which it will carry interest @ 8% per annum. 14. With above observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 23.09.2025 Shahid/ uploaded