“Insensitive”: Allahabad High Court Summons Power Corporation MD Over Denial Of Electrocution Compensation To Deceased Worker's Family

The Allahabad High Court has summoned the Managing Director, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited over denial of compensation to the family of a deceased worker who was electrocuted while rectifying the fault on an electric pole.

Noting the callous manner in which the compensation claim was denied, the bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan observed,

“Once an officer of the rank of Deputy Director, Electrical Safety, Varanasi, has categorically recorded in his report that the deceased, Shiv Kumar Gupta, climbed the electric pole on the instructions of Hanuman Prasad Patel, who, without obtaining shutdown, directed him to carry out the repair work resulting in the electrocution of Shiv Kumar Gupta and the accident occurred on account of non-compliance of Rule 36(2) of the Electricity Rules, 1956. This, Court expresses it's serious concern about the lax and negligent manner in which the respondent-corporation has dealt with the issue involved.”

Petitioner's compensation claim for the death of deceased while carrying out rectification work in electricity line was rejected on grounds that the deceased was not an employee of the Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited.

It was pleaded that the report of Deputy Director, Electrical Safety, Varanasi, specifically recorded that the deceased had carried out the work on instructions of the Junior Engineer. The report recommended dispersal of appropriate compensation to the dependents of the deceased.

When the matter was taken up, the counsel holding brief of the counsel for Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam made a statement that Rs. 7,50,000 would be paid as compensation. However, since panel counsel was not available, the Court adjourned the matter with the understanding the process of dispersal would be initiated. However, on the next date, the counsel for Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam resiled from the statement made earlier and wanted to argue on merits.

It was argued that the deceased was not an employee of Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam, and that the Deputy Director, Electrical Safety, Varanasi had no power to recommend grant of compensation. It was argued that the under the Electricity Act, permission to shutdown electricity could only be granted on request by authorized officer, since no such request was received, electricity was not shut down.

Rejecting the arguments, the Court observed that the report clearly recorded that the deceased had undertaken work on the directions of an employee of the corporation. It held that once such a finding was recorded by the Deputy Director, Electrical Safety, Varanasi, the same could not be rejected by the corporation by denying that the junior engineer was their employee.

“We further record that we find the conduct of the respondent-corporation to be wholly insensitive and unjustified in denying compensation on such hyper-technical grounds, which have no bearing on the facts of the present case.”

After ordering the presence of the Managing Director, the Court also recorded its displeasure at the conduct of the counsels.

“After the Court dictated the order, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Court was compelling the respondents to comply with the order "at gunpoint". We fail to understand the tenor and propriety of such a submission, particularly when it has been made by a counsel who is an officer of the Court.”

The matter is listed on July 13.

Case: Phoolchandra v. Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Limited (D.L.W.) Bhikharipur Varanasi And Another [WRIT - C No. - 15130 of 2026]

Click Here To Read/Download Order