Allahabad HC Summons Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran MD Over Denial of Electrocution Compensation to Deceased Worker's Family

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has directed the Managing Director of Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited to appear personally after the corporation denied compensation despite a Deputy Director's report establishing its employee's role in the electrocution death.

The Allahabad High Court, on 8 July 2026, summoned the Managing Director of Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited to appear personally before the bench on 13 July 2026. The direction came in a writ petition filed by Phoolchandra, father of the deceased, Shiv Kumar Gupta, who died of electrocution while carrying out repair work on the instructions of a contractual Junior Engineer of the respondent-corporation. Despite a report by the Deputy Director, Electrical Safety, Varanasi, which unambiguously recorded this sequence of events and recommended compensation, the corporation had rejected the claim under its own Office Memorandum dated 25 September 2021 on the ground that the deceased was not its employee. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan, found the corporation's conduct to be “wholly insensitive and unjustified.”

What the Writ Petition Challenged

Phoolchandra approached the High Court challenging an order dated 13 March 2026 passed by respondent no. 2, which rejected his claim for compensation under the Office Memorandum dated 25 September 2021. The Office Memorandum, as recorded in the judgment, was issued with the object of providing immediate financial relief to dependants of persons who lose their lives or suffer injuries in accidents caused by the fault of Electricity Establishments.

The rejection was grounded on the position that the deceased, Shiv Kumar Gupta, was not an employee of the corporation. Phoolchandra contested this, pointing to the report of the Deputy Director, Electrical Safety, Varanasi, which recorded that his son had been directed to climb an electric pole by Hanuman Prasad Patel, a contractual employee working as Junior Engineer with Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited. Shiv Kumar Gupta climbed the pole without a shutdown of electricity supply having been obtained, suffered an electric shock, and died as a result of the fall and electrocution.

The Deputy Director's Report and What It Found

The report by the Deputy Director, Electrical Safety, Varanasi, is central to the case. The bench quoted the relevant Hindi extract at length. The report records that Shiv Kumar Gupta accompanied Hanuman Prasad Patel — described as a contractual worker deployed at a sub-station of Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited — to a PCC pole inside the premises of a primary school in Jaunpur. Hanuman Prasad Patel directed Shiv Kumar Gupta to climb the pole and rectify an electricity fault without first obtaining a shutdown. Gupta suffered an electric shock and fell from the pole, and the accident proved fatal.

The Deputy Director found that the accident occurred due to non-compliance of Rule 36(2) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. The report held both Hanuman Prasad Patel and Shiv Kumar Gupta jointly responsible, directed the corporation to take necessary action against them, and recommended that the corporation consider granting appropriate compensation to Phoolchandra, the deceased's father.

The corporation's counter affidavit did not dispute either the genuineness or the authenticity of this report. The bench found that the impugned order of 13 March 2026 had “very conveniently overlooked” the material finding that Hanuman Prasad Patel was a contractual employee of the corporation.

The Corporation's Defences and the Bench's Rejection of Each

When the matter was argued on merits, counsel for the respondent-corporation raised three submissions. The bench addressed and rejected each of them.

First, it was argued that under Section 161 of the Electricity Act, the Electrical Inspector is only empowered to submit a report and has no authority to recommend payment of compensation. The bench held this submission to be misconceived. Even assuming the Deputy Director lacked authority to make a recommendation, the report itself unequivocally established that the deceased climbed the pole on the instructions of a contractual employee of the corporation. The corporation had not disputed the report's correctness, so the question of the Deputy Director's authority to recommend compensation was irrelevant to the underlying factual finding.

Second, the corporation contended that Hanuman Prasad Patel was not its employee and therefore no liability could be fastened upon it. The bench rejected this outright. The Deputy Director's report — a report by a competent officer whose findings the corporation had not challenged — specifically recorded that Hanuman Prasad Patel was a contractual employee working as Junior Engineer with the corporation. The bench held that once such a categorical finding had been recorded by a competent officer, it was not open to the corporation to deny its responsibility.

Third, the corporation argued that under Rule 36 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, a shutdown of electricity supply can be granted only upon a request made by an authorised officer of the corporation, and since no authorised officer was present, no shutdown could have been obtained and therefore no liability arose. The bench found this submission to have “no relevance whatsoever” to the controversy at hand. The absence of a proper shutdown was, in fact, the very cause of the accident; the corporation's attempt to convert a safety failure into a liability shield was firmly set aside.

Conduct of the Corporation and Its Counsel

The bench's order devotes considerable attention to the conduct of the respondent-corporation and its panel counsel, Sri Udit Chandra.

On the previous date of hearing, Sri Nitesh Kumar Patel, holding brief for Sri Udit Chandra, had sought an adjournment. The bench declined, noting that the matter concerned payment of compensation and had already been pending since 9 April 2026. During that hearing, the bench observed that it was inclined to summon the Managing Director to explain how the claim had been denied in such an insensitive manner. Upon that observation, Sri Nitesh Kumar Patel passed over the matter to obtain instructions, and thereafter made a statement before the Court that the corporation was ready and willing to pay Rs. 7,50,000 to the petitioner in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 25 September 2021. The bench adjourned the matter on the understanding that the payment process would be initiated and that Sri Udit Chandra would record a formal statement on the next date.

When the matter was taken up on 8 July 2026, Sri Udit Chandra resiled from the statement his junior had made, offered no satisfactory explanation, and proceeded to argue the matter on merits.

The bench recorded that it did not appreciate this conduct. It noted that a statement made by a counsel holding brief, after obtaining instructions, is a statement of the party and cannot be retracted without explanation. After the order was dictated, Sri Udit Chandra submitted that the Court was compelling the respondents to comply “at gunpoint.” The bench recorded its inability to understand the tenor and propriety of such a submission, particularly from a counsel who is an officer of the Court.

Sri Udit Chandra further requested that the matter not be listed on 13 July 2026, as he would not be available. The bench declined this request as well, recording that on the earlier occasion too, sufficient indulgence had already been granted and that a court cannot fix dates according to the convenience of counsel.

Outcome

The bench directed that the Managing Director, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (respondent no. 1), shall remain personally present before the Court on 13 July 2026, to explain how officers of the corporation have acted in a casual and callous manner in denying the compensation claim. The matter has been listed as fresh on that date. The bench expressed serious concern about the lax and negligent manner in which the corporation had dealt with the matter.