IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13074 of 2015 ====================================================== Lagan Deo Sah S/o Kamal Sah son of Shaligram Singh P.O. Sonamani Gudam, P.S. Sonamani Gudam, District Araria. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary, Department Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Collector, District Araria. 6. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, District Araria. 7. The Block Development Officer, Kursakaanta, District Araria. 8. The In-charge, Primary Health Centre, Kursakaanta, District Araria. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Md. Waliur Rahman, Advocate Md. Nishant Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. N.K. Singh- SC-2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA CAV JUDGMENT Date : 29-07-2025 Heard the parties 2. The petitioner in the present writ application seeks the following main relief: (i) For issuance of appropriate Writ/ Writs, Order/Orders, Direction/ Directions commanding the Respondents to give compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) to the Petitioner, which was Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025 2/18 assured to the parents/guardians of the deceased children by the Respondents as policy matter of the State when 20 children died after unsafe vaccination of Encephalitis in Araria District due to gross negligence of the authorities entrusted with the work of such vaccination and due to gross negligence of the authorities in treatment of such children, who died due to complications developed after such vaccination. (ii) FOR issuance of appropriate Writ /Writs, Order / Orders, Direction / Directions commanding the Respondents to give government job to one family member of the Petitioner, which was assured to the parents/guardians of the deceased children by the Respondents as policy matter of the State when 20 children died after unsafe vaccination of Encephalitis in Araria District due to gross negligence of the authorities entrusted with the work of such vaccination and due to gross negligence of the authorities in treatment of such children, who died due to complications developed after such vaccination.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 12.12.2013, the petitioner’s minor children, namely Jitu Kumar Sah (aged about 9 years) and Sita Kumari (aged about 10 years), were vaccinated for Encephalitis at their government school by Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025 3/18 health workers. Immediately after receiving the vaccination, both children developed severe complications and high fever. To support this, the health cards of the children have been annexed as Annexure-1 Series. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner, upon being informed of his children's deteriorating condition, took them to the Primary Health Centre, Kursakaanta. However, the concerned respondent (Respondent No. 8) only assured the petitioner that nothing would happen, and then left the health centre without further bothering to attend the children. During this time, the children’s condition worsened. The petitioner attempted to take his children to Sadar Hospital, Araria, but unfortunately, his son, Jitu Kumar Sah, passed away while his daughter could somehow be saved. 5. Learned counsel has pointed out that the same incident occurred with about 20 other children in Araria district, all belonging to poor, unprivileged families and from SC/ST or minority communities. Owing to mass protests, the authorities assured the families of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- and a government job for one family member. However, only Rs. 20,000/- was paid to the petitioner via cheque dated 31.01.2014, which he has not encashed (Annexure-2) till date. Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025 4/18 6. The petitioner further submits that as the authorities did not fulfill their assurance, he made representations before the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Government of Bihar, and the Collector, Araria, on 18.04.2014 (Annexure-3 Series). 7. Later Respondent No. 6, by Letter No. 706 dated 02.07.2014, communicated to Respondent No. 5 about the death of several children, including the petitioner’s son, attributing the deaths to Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (Annexure-4). 8. The petitioner also represented his grievance to the Hon’ble Minister of Welfare on 05.07.2014, and a public petition was submitted to the Hon’ble Minister of Health on 10.07.2014. 9. Learned counsel further contends that after more than 9 months from the incident, Respondent No. 6, vide Letter No. 987 dated 22.09.2014, submitted an enquiry report to Respondent No. 5, stating that 10 children died due to Acute Encephalitis Syndrome and held that no compensation could be provided for such deaths. The petitioner challenges this report as illegal and absurd, alleging that the deaths were due to unsafe and negligent vaccination, as only those children who received the vaccine died immediately. The petitioner is stated to still be running from pillar to post for redressal of his grievances, but the authorities have not addressed the issue. Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025 5/18 10. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 submits that there is no provision for payment of compensation in the case of death due to Encephalitis by the Health Department. The decision to grant any compensation or relief rests with the State Government or Central Government, and not the respondent personally. The petitioner must prove through documentary evidence whether any such policy exists regarding compensation for Encephalitis deaths. 11. Regarding allegations of unsafe vaccination, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 submits that no promise had been made by the respondent to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000 to any victim. It is further submitted that after the vaccination program held on 12.12.2013, 394 children were vaccinated and none of them made any complaint about unsafe vaccination. The vaccinations were administered by well-trained Para Medical staff, following all basic precautions. After the unfortunate deaths of children in Araria District, an enquiry committee was formed. The committee submitted its report on 25.07.2014, stating clearly that there was no negligence in vaccination and the vaccines used were not expired. The report also noted that all five children vaccinated at one site were covered, and had there been any issue with the vaccine, all five would have suffered, but this was not the case. Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025 6/18 Therefore the present writ application is bad in law and not maintainable as it has been filed only to defame the authorities with false and frivolous claims, lacking any valid legal basis or documentary support. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that according to the reports from the District Magistrates of Muzaffarpur, East Champaran, West Champaran, Shivhar and Bhagalpur, funds of Rs.564.00 lakh have been sent to the concerned districts from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund for the payment of compensation to the parents or guardians of a total of 141 children who died due to encephalitis. This payment was made as per a detailed statement attached to the counter affidavit. 13. Learned counsel for respondent no, 2 further submits that a letter dated 12.01.2021 was issued by the Chief Minister Relief Fund, Bihar, authorizing the ex-gratia grant. However, it has been clarified that there is no government scheme for providing ex-gratia grant to the guardians of patients who died due to Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES). The fund is made available from time to time from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund, at the discretion of the authorities, to provide compensation for such deaths. There is no automatic entitlement or regular government scheme for such ex-gratia payments. It is further submitted that if Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025 7/18 someone dies due to lack of timely treatment in a Government Hospital, the concerned persons are identified and legal action is taken for negligence, but there is again no provision for compensation by default in such cases. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s claims of entitlement to compensation or job on this basis are not supported by any government scheme or policy. Therefore this writ application lacks material evidence and is liable to be dismissed. ISSUES IN QUESTION (i) Whether there existed any policy of the State Government in the year 2013 for payment of compensation to parents/guardians of children who died due to Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES)? (ii) Whether there has been any negligence on the part of government officials or medical staff with respect to the vaccination ? (iii) Whether the enquiry conducted by the authorities regarding the cause of death of the children was fair and in accordance with law and whether its findings are sustainable? (iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any further relief, including enhanced compensation, as a matter of right or in equity? Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025 8/18 FINDINGS Issue 1: Whether there existed any policy of the State Government in the year 2013 for payment of compensation to parents/guardians of children who died due to Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES)? Upon perusal of the records it was observed that there was no statutory or codified policy of the Government of Bihar in the year 2013 specifically providing for the payment of compensation to the family members of children who died due to Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES), ex-gratia payments were, in fact, made in several cases from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund, as per administrative discretion. The records reflect that Rs. 564.00 lakh was disbursed to various districts for compensating 141 affected families. However, this was done not under any pre-existing enforceable scheme, but purely as a matter of governmental discretion. It is also clarified by the respondents that no uniform entitlement exists, and each case is considered independently based on administrative satisfaction. The petitioner has failed to produce any government resolution, circular, or written directive which may show that in 2013, a policy decision was formally taken by the State Government for payment of compensation in cases of death due to Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025 9/18 AES. Similarly, no documentary evidence has been brought on record to support the claim that 10,00,000/- and a government ₹ job were assured as a matter of right. Accordingly, this Court holds that in the year 2013, there existed no declared policy of the State Government mandating the payment of compensation to the parents or guardians of children who died due to Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES). The payments made, if any, were discretionary in nature, flowing from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund, and cannot confer any enforceable right upon the petitioner in absence of a formal governmental scheme or policy. Issue 2: Whether there has been any negligence on the part of government officials or medical staff with respect to the vaccination? After carefully considering the rival submissions of the parties, the material placed on record, and the contents of the enquiry reports submitted by the authorities, this Court observes that in cases where multiple children were vaccinated at the same site, not all suffered adverse reactions, and thus casting doubt on any generalized claim of unsafe vaccines is baseless to an extent unless some material evidence is produced to support the claim. Also, the enquiry report attributed the deaths to Acute Encephalitis Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025 10/18 Syndrome (AES) and concluded that there was no medical negligence involved in either the vaccination process or the vaccine itself. Issue 3: Whether the enquiry conducted by the authorities regarding the cause of death of the children was fair and in accordance with law and whether its findings are sustainable? Upon a careful consideration of the materials placed on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court finds that the enquiry into the unfortunate deaths of the children, including the petitioner’s son, was duly initiated and conducted by a competent committee constituted by the Health Department, Government of Bihar. The report, dated 25.07.2014, was submitted after a thorough investigation and in compliance with the procedures laid down for such public health-related inquiries. The enquiry committee comprised qualified medical and administrative personnel and based its conclusions on clinical records, vaccination data, field investigation, and scientific evaluation. The findings of the report clearly state that the deaths were attributable to Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES) and not due to any negligence in the vaccination process. It was observed that: Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025 11/18 (a) A total of 394 children were vaccinated at the concerned location on 12.12.2013. (b) The vaccinations were administered by trained para- medical staff, following due protocols. (c) The vaccines used were not expired, and no irregularities were found in the cold chain or handling. In locations where multiple children were vaccinated from the same batch, not all experienced adverse reactions, suggesting no defect or negligence in the vaccine itself. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with administrative procedure and health department norms. There is no material on record to show that the proceedings were biased, arbitrary, or conducted in violation of law. The petitioner's claim that the inquiry was delayed or inadequate lacks merit, as such investigations require careful data collection, expert evaluation, and administrative coordination. A delay of a few months in finalizing such a report—especially in the context of multiple fatalities and widespread public concern— cannot be construed as procedural unfairness, particularly when the report has been supported by consistent facts and data. Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025 12/18 Accordingly, this Court holds that the enquiry conducted by the State authorities was fair, impartial, and in accordance with law. Issue 4: Whether the petitioner is entitled to any further relief, including enhanced compensation, as a matter of right or in equity? After considering the pleadings, submissions of the parties, and the material on record, it has been brought to the Court’s attention that other similarly situated families—whose children also died under similar circumstances in Araria district— were provided compensation of 50,000/- or more from the Chief ₹ Minister’s Relief Fund. The petitioner, however, was paid only 20,000/-, without explanation or justification for the differential ₹ treatment. Such disparity, in absence of any intelligible classification or reason, is clearly arbitrary and offends the principle of equality before law under Article 14 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the right to health and timely medical treatment is an integral facet of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, despite the children developing serious symptoms immediately after vaccination, the available records suggest that Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025 13/18 adequate and timely medical care was not provided at the Primary Health Centre, Kursakanta. This Court considers it appropriate to note that the petitioner's grievance regarding the lack of immediate and effective medical intervention at the Primary Health Centre— particularly the alleged inaction and departure of the concerned official (Respondent No.8)—is a serious issue, which does not appear to have been thoroughly investigated or addressed in the enquiry report. No individual accountability or action against any official for alleged medical negligence in treatment has been brought on record. In the case of Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity and others vs State of W.B. & Others reported in (1996) 4 SCC 37, the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph-9 observed that: "….Failure on the part of a government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment results in violation of his Right to Life guaranteed under Art 21 of the Indian Constitution " There exists a specific and serious allegation against Respondent No. 8 regarding his absence and dereliction of duty at a critical juncture, as clearly stated in paragraph 5 of the writ Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025 14/18 petition. However, the State, in its counter affidavit, has conspicuously failed to respond to this allegation or to produce any relevant records from the Primary Health Centre (PHC) or other supporting documents to rebut the claim or establish the presence and conduct of the said respondent during the emergency. Respondent no. 8 did not even bother to give any response to the specific allegation levelled against him for dereliction of duty. Such omission reflects a casual and indifferent attitude on the part of the respondents in dealing with a matter involving the loss of a minor’s life, which clearly warranted a prompt and transparent reply. Instead, as observed in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit of Respondent no. 6, the respondent sought to shift the burden onto the petitioner by insisting on the production of documentary evidence—an expectation that is legally untenable, since the custody and control of the relevant medical and administrative records rest solely with the government authorities, not the petitioner. This issue had also been specifically flagged by this Court in its order dated 08.05.2025 seeking a detailed reply on this issue. Yet, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 remains vague and unresponsive on this point, offering no substantive clarification or documentary support on this crucial Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025 15/18 aspect. Mere non- availability of a policy as such to consider the same cannot be a reason to deny the petitioner from adequate compensation. Once the infringement of a fundamental right is established, the State is duty bound to compensate the same even if it lacks policy guidelines. In the case of Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity and others vs State of W.B. & Others reported in (1996) 4 SCC 37, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that: "In respect of deprivation of the constitutional rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution the position is well settled that adequate compensation can be awarded by the Court for such violation by way of redress in proceedings under Art.32 and 226 of the Constitution " This fact has been emphasized by various other Judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court such as Rudal Shah vs State of Bihar reported in AIR 1983 SC 1086 and Nilabati Behra v State of Orissa reported in AIR 1993 SC 1960. In Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, the Hon’ble Apex Court said: “…In these circumstances, the refusal of this court to pass an order of compensation in favour of the petitioner will be doing mere lip service to his fundamental right to liberty Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025 16/18 which the State Government has so grossly violated.” In Sube Singh v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2006 SC 1117, the court gave a condition to be fulfilled before ordering compensation – “Every court should ascertain if the violation of the right to life is patent and incontrovertible. After this, the court may proceed to give whatever compensation it deems fit.” In light of the concerns raised during the pendency of this writ application and the inability of the state to provide any material evidence to prove this fact, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation not merely as a matter of policy or discretion but also on grounds of constitutional equity and fairness. 14. In view of the above findings and a comprehensive consideration of the pleadings, this Court directs that the respondents shall pay a sum of 30,000 to the petitioner as ₹ compensation, in addition to the previously offered 20,000/- if ₹ the cheque has been encashed by the petitioner in order to maintain equity with the similarly situated aggrieved families who are awarded with a compensation of 50,000 ,within eight weeks ₹ from the date of this order. However, if the earlier issued cheque of Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025 17/18 20,000/- has not been encashed by the petitioner and since then ₹ has expired ,then the respondent shall pay full sum of 50,000 to ₹ the petitioner as compensation within eight weeks of this order. Additionally, an extra compensation of 1 Lakh is to be given by the State to the petitioner on account of its lapse in providing the essential medical care and treatment to the child at Primary Health Centre, Kursakaanta, Araria, which is violative of the Art. 21 of the Constitution. This amount shall be treated as ex-gratia compensation for the violation of the petitioner’s deceased son’s fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and shall also be paid within eight weeks from the date of this order. 15. As regards the Medical Officer who was the incharge of the PHC, Kursakanta at that point of time who was responsible for the lapse and dereliction of duty resulting in denial of immediate medical aid to the petitioner’s deceased son, the State is directed to take appropriate administrative actions against the officer concerned, in accordance with law. 16. A copy of this judgment to be sent for taking necessary action to the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar within 4 weeks from the date of this order and the Principal Secretary is directed to take appropriate action as Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025 18/18 per law within three months of the date of receiving of the copy of this judgment 17. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending I.A.s if any will be deemed to have been disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Prakash Narayan (Alok Kumar Sinha, J) AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 25.07.2025 Uploading Date 29.07.2025 Transmission Date NA