1 2025:CGHC:44602-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPPIL No. 77 of 2025 Suo Moto PIL In The Matter Of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation, Regarding “vks,pbZ ls >qyls ;qod dk bykt djkus ls jsyos ihNs gVk] ifjTku gks jgs ijs’kku” “jsyos vQljksa dk dguk&Bsdk ,tsalh dks fn, funsZ’k” Based On News Item Published In Daily News Paper Dainik Bhaskar, Bilaspur, Dated 27 August 2025. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union of India Through The Secretary, Ministry of Railway, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 2 - South Eastern Central Railway Through General Manager, New GM Building, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Divisional Railway Manager, SECR Through South Eastern Central Railway Zone, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The Chief Engineer South Eastern Central Railway Zone, Bilaspur, (C.G.) 5 - Senior Divisional Commercial Manager South Eastern Central Railway Zone, Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Kumar Engineering Bhilai Through Its Director Distt.- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : None. For Respondent No. 1 to5 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General assisted by Ms. Shweta Rai, Advocate. For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. B.P.Singh, Advocate. For Intervenor : Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate. 2 Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 02/09/2025 1 This is an office reference. 2 This suo motu Public Interest Litigation petition was registered on the basis of a news item published in Hindi Daily, Dainik Bhaskar, on 27.08.2025 with a heading “vks,pbZ ls >qyls ;qod dk bykt djkus ls jsyos ihNs gVk] ifjTku gks jgs ijs’kku” which highlighted a tragic case of a young man who sustained severe burns after coming into contact with the Overhead Equipment (OHE) while repairing a leakage in an AC coach at the Railway Coaching Depot, Bilaspur. His condition remained critical, and was undergoing treatment at Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur. The family of the victim is unable to bear the mounting medical expenses, and they are made to run between the Divisional Railway Manager (for short, the DRM) Office and the Coaching Depot in search of help. Railway officials were reported to have attempted to distance themselves from responsibility, claiming that there was no provision for compensation or medical assistance for contract workers. They have directed the Contractor to bear the entire cost. The victim was a resident of village- Mulmula Akaltara, District Janjgir- Champa, and an employee working under the Electrical Department of the Railway Coaching Depot who had suffered 70% burns after coming in contact with live OHE wires. He was battling for his life at Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur. Meanwhile, his poor family continued to appeal to Railway authorities for compensation and financial aid for his treatment. His relatives approached the DRM office seeking 3 assistance and compensation, but officials reportedly told them that no such provision existed and that all expenses was to be borne by the Contractor concerned. Later, when the family approached the Coaching Complex, they received the same response. It was further stated that the Railway Administration has shifted the entire responsibility of treatment of the victim following his electrocution and severe burns, onto the respondent No. 6 - Kumar Engineering, Bhilai. 3 The matter was taken up for hearing on 28.08.2025 on which date, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General (who had appeared through Video Conferencing, was directed to inform the General Manager as well as the Divisional Railway Manager (DRM), South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, to appear before this Court on that date itself through Video Conferencing. In compliance of the same, Mr. Tarun Prakash, General Manager and Mr. Rajmal Khoiwal, Divisional Railway Manager, SECR, Bilaspur, had appeared through Video Conferencing and a specific query was made as to whether the Railways had taken the responsibility of treatment of the victim, upon which it was stated by Mr. Tarun Prakash, General Manager, SECR that the victim who got electrocuted, was in fact not the employee of Railways but was the employee of respondent No. 6, who is a Contractor of the Railways. It was further submitted that the victim had unauthorisedly climbed the coach and as such, got electrocuted for which the Railway was not responsible. Mr. Prakash further submitted that there had been a meeting of the Railway authorities with that of the respondent No. 6/Contractor and the family members of the victim and they were working out as to how the victim could be given financial aid. 4 4 This Court had expressed its primary concern to provide all the necessary medical assistance to the victim who was fighting for his life in the Hospital and the financial burden should not come in the way of getting the best possible treatment for him and as such, this Court directed the respondent No. 2/General Manager, SECR, Bilaspur to file his personal affidavit within a period of three days, with respect to the issue involved in this public interest litigation petition and to inform this Court as to what sort of financial assistance the Railway or the respondent No. 6 proposes to provide or has been provided to the victim and also to clarify as to who was responsible for such an act of negligence where a person comes into contact with live wire causing severe injuries and if the fault was on the part of the Contractor/ respondent No. 6, then what action has been taken by the Railways against the said Contractor and the matter was directed to be listed today. 5 Pursuant to the above directions, the respondent No. 2/General Manager, SECR, Bilaspur, has filed his personal affidavit, the relevant portion of which reads as under: “i. That, the Railway awarded the contract for "arresting of roof leakage in all type of AC LHB Coaches to M/s Kumar Engineering Works, Bhilai. ii. That, the Work of "arresting of roof leakage in all type of AC LHB Coaches" was awarded to M/s Kumar Engineering Works, Bhilai. The contractor engaged his own personnel for execution of the said contract. On the unfateful day, Late Pratap Burman contractual worker of M/s Kumar Engineering Works sustained severe burns after coming into contact with the Overhead Equipment (OHE) in Coaching Depot at Bilaspur. 5 iii. That as soon as the Railway Officials received the information of incidence occurred on 23.08.2025 at about 13.10 hrs, Sri Pratap Burman was rushed to Railway hospital and then the CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur immediately. Thereafter looking towards seriousness, the injured person referred to the Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur. Shri Pratap Burman succumbed to injury on 28.08.2025. During of course of treatment complete payment of medical expenses was ensured. A copy of payment receipt dated 29.08.2025 issued by Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur is filed herewith and marked as Annexure R/1. iv. That, it is humbly submitted that the General Conditions of Contract for Service, 2018 (GCCS, 2018 hereinafter) issued vide Board letter по. dated by Railway Contracts 2018/Trans.Cell/Mech./Service 20.03.2018 is applicable in the said contract. Para 4.10 of the GCCS, 2018 is captioned as Indemnity by Contractors The Contractor shall indemnify and save harmless the Railway, from and against, all actions, suit proceedings, losses, costs, damages, charges, claims and demands of every nature and description brought or recovered against the Railways by reason of any act or omission of the Contractor, her agents or employees, in the execution of the services/works wherever applicable or in her guarding of the same. All sums payable by way of compensation under any of these conditions shall be considered as reasonable compensation to be applied to the actual loss or damage sustained, and whether or not any damage shall have been sustained. The copy of GCCS, 2018 is filed here with and marked as Annexure R/2. v. That, it is further humbly submitted that as per para 13 of the Special Conditions of contract, the aforesaid GCCS, 2018 was duly incorporated in the agreement entered with Respondent number 06 M/s Kumar Engineering works. In addition to this, it is further illustrating in the para 02 and para 04 of the special condition of the contract agreement and emphasize the responsibility of the contractor in case of any losses, damages, 6 claims and demands etc. The copy of agreement is filed here with and marked as Annexure R/3. vi. That, Commissioner for Employee's Compensation, Labour Court, Bilaspur and Commissioner for Employee's Compensation, Raipur were reported of this incidence on 27 August 2025. A copy of Report dated 27.08.2025 and dated 27.08.2025 respectively are filed herewith and marked as Annexure R/4. vii. That, the Railway Administration Vide letter dated 29.08.2025 informed and served the contractor on the same day i.e. 29.08.2025 for payment of Rs. 16,49,625/-within 3 days in form of demand draft or cheque to Commissioner for Employee Compensation, Labour Court, Bilaspur. A copy of letter dated 29.08.2025 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure R/5. viii. That, it is most humbly and respectfully submitted that considering the gravity of the case, an amount of Rs. 16,49,625/- towards compensation under ECA Act has been calculated and accordingly a Demand Draft No. 440187 dated 30.08.2025 has been made in the favour of "the Commissioner for Employees Compensation (LC) Bilaspur (CG)" by the railway administration for arranging payment to the bereaved family of the deceased contractual employee. The Demand Draft has been deposited on 01.09.2025 before Labour Court Bilaspur. A copy of Demand Draft No. 440187 dated 30.08.2025 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure R/6. ix. That, an enquiry committee was constituted by Divisional Railway Manager, Bilaspur comprising of Divisional Electrical Engineer (TRD), Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Coaching) and Assistant Divisional Safety Officers to inquire into the lapses occurred leading to the tragic incident. The enquiry report has accepted by the Divisional Railway Manager, Bilaspur. As per enquiry Report the deceased Late Sri Pratap Burman contractual employee of M/s Kumar Engineering Works is responsible for his electrocution because he himself 7 climbed on the coach roof and he did not even pay attention on the warning hooter/announcement sounded after restoring of OHE supply line at 12.40 hrs. On the ill-fated day on 23.08.2025, OHE supply was restored at 12.40 hrs after fulfilling all the safety measures. Shri S.R.Meena, SSE/C&W after instructing staff working under him at site that remaining work in the coach will be done in shed only, engaged in other work. The affected staff Sri Pratap Burman climbed over the roof without consulting his supervisor Shri S.R.Meena, SSE/C&W and got electrocuted badly. A Copy of enquiry report is filed herewith and marked as Annexure R/7. x. That, show cause notice has also been served upon the Contractor to explain the lapses on his part by not following provisions contained in Para 4.36 of GCCS, 2018 (Precaution during program of services). A copy of show cause notice dated 27.08.2025 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure R/8. xi. That, appropriate action, as deemed fit, against the Contractor will be taken by the Railway Administration in due course of time, taking into consideration his reply to the show cause notice. xii. That, as directed by Hon'ble High Court, a letter dated 29.08.2025 has been served to the Contractor (Respondent no. 06) on 29.08.2025 for ensuring his presence personally or through Counsel before this Hon'ble Court on 02.09.2025. A copy of letter dated 29.08.2025 is filed here with and marked as Annexure R/9.” 6 Mr. Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General submits that the Railway administration has taken a sympathetic view towards the deceased and his family members and deposited an amount of Rs. 16,49,625/- before the Labour Court, Bilaspur, on 30.08.2025 itself, without waiting for realizing the said amount from the respondent No. 6 but it is in fact the respondent No. 6 who was required to pay the said amount towards 8 compensation. Under the terms and conditions of the contract, the respondent No. 6 is liable to indemnify any loss caused to the Railways because of any negligent act of the Contractor or its employees. 7 Mr. B.P.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 submits that the respondent No. 2 had floated a tender for the work of arresting of roof leakage in all types of AC LHB coaches at coaching depot, Bilaspur and after the entire tender process, the respondent No. 6 was found to be eligible and thus the letter of acceptance was issued on 26.06.2025. The period of contract was three months from 26.06.2025 to 25.09.2025 and the value of the tender was Rs. 4,20,552/-. On 23.08.2025, the unfortunate accident took place at the Bilaspur Railway Station whereby one of the labour namely Pratap Burman came in contact with the live wire while he was repairing the roof of AC of the coach of the train and suffered severe injuries due to electrocution and thus was admitted to the Apollo Hospital Bilaspur and ultimately succumbed to death on 28.08.2025 at about 09:00 to 09:30 a.m. As soon as the respondent No. 6 got the news, on the same day i.e. he has paid Rs.20,000/-, another Rs. 50,000/- on 25.08.2025, Rs. 2,00,000/- on 28.08.2025 and till 29.08.2025, in total he has deposited Rs. 4,51,529/- for the better treatment of the deceased Pratap Burman. On 29.08.2025, the Senior Coaching Depot Officer SECR, Bilaspur has written a letter to the respondent No.6 to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, Pratap Burman. The Labour Commissioner has also assessed the compensation to the tune of Rs. 16,49,625/-. Mr. Singh further submits that the Railway authorities have coerced the respondent No. 6 to write a letter to the Senior Coaching Depot Officer, SECR, Bilaspur assuring that he would provide compensation to the LRs of the deceased, amounting to Rs.16,49,625/- within 6 months because at 9 present his economic condition was not good, and alternatively it is also stated that said amount may be deducted from any pending bills raised against the respondent No. 6. 8 It is submitted by Mr. Singh that at the time of incident, the respondent No. 6 was not present on the site where the incident has taken place and the said work and place was under the control of Railway employee namely, Sukhram Meena and under his instruction and control, the deceased was repairing the roof of the AC Coach and it was his duty to disconnect the electricity at the time of repairing and thus the respondent No. 6 cannot be held responsible solely for the said unfortunate incident. The primary employer is the Railway and the respondent No. 6 is the secondary employer. Thus the vicarious liability should be fastened upon the Railway authorities and the secondary responsibility to pay the compensation, if any, may be upon the respondent No. 6. The deceased had contacted the respondent No. 6 and asked for work upon which the respondent No. 6 had explained the nature of work, precaution and other safety measures and but the deceased was ready to do the same work and on that date, respondent No. 6 has clearly stated that under the control of site in-charge Sukhram Meena and under his guidance he has to perform his duty. The tender work was hardly left for one month and in between the said period, the unfortunate incident has taken place. 9 According to Mr. Singh, the respondent No. 6 has paid to the Apollo Hospital around Rs.4,51,529/- for providing better treatment to the deceased and till date, the Railway has not deposited a single penny to support the aggrieved family. The respondent No. 6 is a petty Contractor but still has paid the medical bills raised by the Apollo Hospital and tried his level best to provide him the best possible treatment available in the 10 Bilaspur city and fastening the entire responsibility on the shoulders of the respondent No. 6 cannot be justified. 10 An application, being IA No. 1 of 2025, has been filed by the brother of the deceased, namely Pankaj Kumar Barman, seeking intervention and permission to assist the Court in the present petition. 11 Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor submits that the facts have been suppressed by the Railway authorities in this matter. The deceased had succumbed to the injuries on 28.08.2025 itself at 9:00 a.m. and this fact was very well in the knowledge of the Railway authorities but still the same was concealed when the authorities of the Railways appeared before this Court through video conferencing. It is submitted that there has been gross negligence on the part of the Railway authorities as there was no ambulance available because of which the deceased had to be taken in auto rickshaw to the Railway Hospital. No efforts were made by the Railway authorities to rescue the victim when he got electrocuted and the Railway has tried to save his own employees against which the FIR has been registered. The FIR was registered on 24.08.2025 but the said fact was also not brought to the notice of the Court by the authorities of the Railways. Neither any safety equipment were provided to the victim nor to any other co-workers. The Railway authorities are taking work from thousands of poor workers on daily basis under the garb of sham contracts by showing them to be the contract labourers to escape from their statutory liability under various social security legislation. 12 Mr. Matre further submits that by way of contributions and donations amongst the co-workers, an amount to the tune of Rs.1,70,000/- was raised but the family of the victim was asked by the Apollo Hospital to 11 deposit further Rs.3,00,000/-. It is further submitted that the family members of the victim/deceased had to struggle even after the death of the deceased for his postmortem. The dead body of the victim is kept in mortuary of District Hospital, Bilaspur, and is not being handed over to the family members. Hence, appropriate directions may be issued to the respondent authorities in this case, in the interest of justice. 13 From the above submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, what transpires is that it is an admitted fact that the deceased was an employee working under the respondent No. 6 who got electrocuted while performing his duties. It is a matter of investigation and enquiry as to who was responsible for the negligence, but the fact of the matter remains that the deceased succumbed to the injuries while performing his duties at Coaching Depot of the Railways. 14 According to Mr. Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the Railways, the Railways has made payment of the entire medical bills of the victim, however, from perusal of the affidavit filed by the General Manager/respondent No. 2, it merely states that during course of treatment, complete payment of medical expenses was ensured, however, it is not clear as to whether the payment has been made by the Railways or not. The said submission has been controverted by Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6/Contractor stating that an amount of Rs.20,000/- was deposited by the respondent No. 6 in cash and the remaining balance amount of Rs.4,31,530/- was paid by the respondent No. 6/Contractor through online mode. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the payment towards medical expenses was not required to be made by the family members of the deceased. 12 15 Under the Employees Compensation Act, the Railway has calculated the amount of compensation to be Rs.16,49,625/- and a demand draft bearing No. 440187 dated 30.08.2025 has been made in favour of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation (LC) Bilaspur by the Railway administration for arranging payment to the bereaved family of the deceased. An enquiry has also been conducted by the Railway authorities in which they have found the victim himself to be responsible for his electrocution as he did not even pay attention on the warning hooter / announcement sounded after restoring of OHE supply line at 12:40 hours. The deceased climbed over the roof of the coach without consulting the Supervisor, S.R.Meena, SSE/C&W and got electrocuted. 16 According to the respondent No. 6, the medical bills amounting to Rs.4,51,529/- raised by the Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur, has already been paid by him, whereas, according to the learned counsel for the intervenor, the co-workers had paid Rs.1,70,000/-. As the deceased has left behind him his parents, wife and a minor son, this Court deems it appropriate that a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs only) be given as compensation by the Contractor/respondent No. 6 to the family members i.e. wife and child alongwith mother and father of the deceased, within a period of six weeks from today. It is ordered accordingly. 17 According to Mr. Singh, though the Railways has deposited the amount of Rs.16,49,625/- before the Labour Court, Bilaspur, in favour of the family members of the deceased, however, Railways is pressurizing the respondent No. 6 to indemnify the said amount to the Railways under the garb of various conditions mentioned in the contract. The amount of Rs.16,49,625/- which has been deposited by the Railways before the Labour Court, Bilaspur, may be released in favour of the family members 13 of the deceased i.e. wife, child, mother and father of the deceased, within a period of six weeks from today and the issue as to who would bear the said amount, whether the Railways or the Contractor, cannot be decided in this public interest litigation petition and the said parties would be free to take recourse to law before for deciding the said issue before the appropriate forum. 18 Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of. 19 It is made clear that if any grievance of the family members of the deceased still subsist, they are at liberty to take recourse to appropriate forum, if so advised, except for claiming compensation from respondent No. 6 as he has already undertaken to pay further compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 Lacs to the family members of the deceased i.e. wife, child and parents. 20 The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of this order to the Railways/respondents No. 1 to 5 as well as the Contractor/respondent No. 6, for necessary information and compliance, forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.09.04 19:28:13 +0530