The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to formulate a policy prescribing parameters for granting compensation in cases not covered by statutory provisions, after the State informed the Court that its existing compensation policy was confined only to natural calamities.

A Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla passed the direction while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea concerning a devastating fire incident at a three-story building housing an Animation Center in Lucknow in June 2026 in which 15 young persons died, while several others suffered injuries or disability.

The Court had earlier asked the State whether there was any policy, statutory or otherwise, prescribing parameters for determining compensation in cases involving death or injury caused by fire or similar incidents.

In its counter affidavit, the State informed the Court that, as of now, the policy for the payment of compensation applies only to natural calamities and does not cover incidents such as the one before the Court.

The Bench thereafter directed the State Government to formulate a policy for granting compensation in cases where compensation is provided outside the purview of statutory provisions.

The Court said the proposed policy should prescribe parameters on the basis of which compensation is to be determined and paid. It explained:

"This is necessary to avoid discrimination and arbitrariness and also that a case which was less deserving may not get more compensation and vice versa. Let the concerned Departments of the State Government put their heads together and come-up with such a policy", the Court observed.

The Court had earlier observed that different amounts appeared to have been paid as compensation in different incidents.

"In some, the compensation may be to the tune of Rupees Fifty Lakhs, in others Twenty Five lakhs, while in others, such as the case at hand, barely few lakhs", the bench had said.

The Bench therefore sought to know the basis on which the quantum of compensation was being determined.

The Court was also apprised of 3 Supreme Court decisions concerning compensation in fire incidents which deal with the principles applicable where there is no policy or statutory framework for grant of compensation, including the principles used for determining compensation in motor accident claim matters.

The Bench noted that all 3 decisions concerned fire incidents similar to the one before it.

The State was directed to keep these judgments in mind and respond on affidavit regarding the compensation already paid to the victims' families and “why it should not be enhanced”.

The State informed the Court that the victims had received approximately Rs. 11 lakh from various funds and sources: Rs. 5 lakh from the Chief Minister's Discretionary Fund, Rs. 4 lakh from the State Disaster Response Fund, and Rs. 2 lakh from the Prime Minister's Relief Fund.

The victims' families submitted that some families had not received the Rs.2 lakh from the PM Relief Fund. The Court directed the Union Government's counsel to verify the position.

The Court also considered the case of Jayant Gupta (25), who got injured and disabled during the Lucknow fire incident. His counsel submitted that Gupta was undergoing treatment at King George's Medical University (KGMU) and that his treatment expenses were approximately Rs. 70,000 per month, whereas he had received only Rs. 50,000 as compensation.

The Court observed that, prima facie, the incident had occurred not only because of a lapse on the part of the building owner but also due to lapses on the part of authorities, including the Lucknow Development Authority or other Government departments, in permitting the building to come up and be used for commercial purposes illegally.

In these circumstances, the Bench directed the State to pay the bills of the said injured person. The concerned State department was directed to take necessary steps.

The Court further directed KGMU not to charge any expenses from Gupta and to ensure that he receives adequate and proper treatment.

The PIL has been listed for further hearing on October 15.

Case title - Shivendu Pandey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 11 Others

Click Here To Read/Download Order