HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 8124 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Short counter affidavit filed today by counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 5 is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Alok Saran, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 5, Mr. P.K. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the state perused the records. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.07.2024, whereby, the petitioner, who are the heirs of the deceased employee, have been denied payment of ex-gratia, prevalent at that time. The contention put forth by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioners' relative, while working on muster-roll, died due to electrocution and the claim of the petitioner, who are heirs, have been declined mainly on two grounds; one is that the contractor is responsible for maintenance work and further, the incident occurred due to negligence committed by the deceased employee. He added that, in fact, it is settled law that the ex-gratia amount, is paid, in case of electrocution, is also available to the muster-roll employees or any other temporary employees, likewise the regular employees of the electricity department. He next submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased employee, as the order does not contain any such material, which could reveal, any negligence on the part of the deceased. He submitted that these reasons are the otherwise pretends for not Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Bahadur Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Alok Saran Santosh And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Energy Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) providing the ex-gratia and both reasons do not stand on its own legs, therefore, submission is that the order dated 26.07.2024 may be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- corporation submitted and has drawn attention towards the order dated 24.11.2024, which is a letter written by the Executive Engineer to the Superintendent Engineer, Vidhut Vitran Mandal, Ist, Raebareli, while seeking the instructions for the payment of ex-gratia to the hears/near relatives of the deceased employee is pending consideration. He submitted that the decision will be taken very soon. Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the impugned order has been passed on the pretext that there was negligence on the part of the deceased employee and further, the contractor is responsible for the incident. This Court finds that the authority who has passed the order, has not discussed that what was the material before him to find out that on the negligence of the deceased employee, he came into touch with the electricity and died due to electrocution. Further, there is no document which could show that in such situations the contractor will be held responsible and this is also not the intent of the policy, which is meant for providing the ex-gratia, in case of electrocution. This Court has also noticed that in the inspection report dated 22.02.2024, the deceased employee, while on duty, had died, due to electrocution and there are no observations in the report that there is any negligence on the part of the deceased employee. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 26.07.2024 is unsustainable and thus, the same is hereby quashed. The Superintendent Engineer as well as the Executive Engineer, Electricity Department are hereby directed to pay the ex-gratia amount as per the law prevalent, within a period of six weeks to the petitioners. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is hereby allowed. November 26, 2025 Mayank WRIA No. 8124 of 2025 2 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench