Chhattisgarh High Court Initiates Suo Moto Case Over Railway's Refusal To Fund Treatment Of Electrocuted Contract Worker "Battling For Life"

The Chhattisgarh High Court has taken suo-motu cognisance of Railway Department's refusal to the fund the treatment of a young contract worker "battling for his life" after coming in contact with an Overhead Equipment (OHE) while repairing a leakage at the Railway Coaching Depot.While the Railway officials were reported to have attempted to "distance themselves" from the responsibility, claiming that there is no provision for compensation or medical assistance for contract workers and that the contractor— Kumar Engineering Bhilai (Respondent 6), is to bear the entire cost, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed,“At this stage, the primary concern of this Court is to provide all the necessary medical assistance to the victim who is 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 …”The Court relied on a news report which revealed that the injured worker was a resident of Mulmula Akaltara village and an employee working under the Electrical Department of the Railway Coaching Depot. He was in a critical condition and was undergoing treatment in the Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur. Subsequently, it was reported that his family, which was unable to bear the expense of the treatment, was being made to run between the Divisional Railway Manager Office and the Coaching Depot in search of financial help.The Railway authorities argued that the injured worker was, in fact, not an employee of the Railway department and that the responsibility of treatment lies with Respondent 6. They further argued that the injured victim had unauthorisedly climbed the coach and suffered electrocution, for which the Railway is not responsible.Regardless, the Court directed the General Manager, SECR (Respondent 2) to file his personal affidavit within three days and inform the Court as to what financial assistance the Railway or Respondent 6 propose to provide or has been provided to the victim. The Court further sought clarification as to who was responsible for such an act of negligence where a person comes into contact with a live wire causing severe injuries and if the fault was on the part of the contractor, then what action has been taken by the Railways against the same.The matter is now listed on September 02.Case Number: WPPIL No. 77 of 2025Case Title: Suo Moto PIL in the matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation v. Union of IndiaClick Here To Read/Download Order

Chhattisgarh High Court Initiates Suo Moto Case Over Railway's Refusal To Fund Treatment Of Electrocuted Contract Worker "Battling For Life"

Saahas Arora

Tags