Addressing the issues of medical relief and compensation for victims of a building fire tragedy, a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla has directed the Uttar Pradesh State Government to reimburse the incurred medical expenditure and recurring monthly treatment bills of a permanently disabled victim, while asking the State to present specific instructions on proposed compensation for the Bench to assess its adequacy.
Background and Representation of Parties
The proceedings arise out of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 603 of 2026, filed by Shivendu Pandey against the State of Uttar Pradesh through the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Home Department, Lucknow, and 11 others, taken up along with connected PIL No. 609 of 2026 (Abhishek Dubey v. State of U.P. and 5 others).
The petitioner appeared in person, alongside learned counsels Rakesh Devi Prasad Kumar, Shashank Tilhari, Rohit Tripathi, Shishir Srivastava, and Syed Zulfiqar Husain Naqvi. The respondents were represented by Sri V.K. Shahi, learned Additional Advocate General, along with the Additional Solicitor General of India (A.S.G.I.), Chief Standing Counsel (C.S.C.), and counsels Aprajita Bansal, Manish Jauhari, Ratnesh Chandra, Shailendra Singh Chauhan, and Shubham Tripathi.
During the hearing, the Division Bench allowed two separate intervention applications. The first intervention was granted on behalf of the injured victim Jayant Gupta, represented by counsel Shashank Tilhari. The second intervention was allowed on behalf of the families of the victims, represented by counsel Rohit Tripathi. The Court directed that the names of Sri Tilhari and Sri Tripathi be shown in the cause list as counsel for the respective intervenors on the next listing.
Addressing the ownership of the building where the fire tragedy took place, Advocate Kaustubh Shandilya informed the Court that he proposes to file a Vakalatnama, after curing defects, on behalf of one of the two owners, Virendra Prasad Shukla. The Court instructed the petitioner to implead the other co-owner, Surendra Prasad Shukla, during the course of the day. Sri Shandilya stated that he would file a Vakalatnama on behalf of the newly impleaded co-owner as well, eliminating the need for separate notices. The Court permitted the owners to submit their response to the writ petition prior to the next date of hearing.
Arguments of the Parties
Sri V.K. Shahi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, placed on record an order dated October 15, 2026, issued by the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of U.P. Under this government order, directions were issued to the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Medical Health & Family Welfare and Medical Education Department, ensuring that no medical expenses will be charged from Jayant Gupta for his treatment at King George’s Medical University (KGMU), that proper medical care will be provided, and that any required medical expenditure demand will be raised before the State Government, which shall bear the cost.
Counsel representing applicant Jayant Gupta submitted that the victim has already incurred approximately Rs. 2.5 Lakh towards his medical treatment, whereas he has received only around Rs. 1.5 Lakh from all sources as compensation. Counsel emphasized that Gupta is permanently disabled and unable to move. Prior to the incident in which he sustained injuries, he was working as a character artist earning about Rs. 46,000 per month. Presently unable to earn any livelihood, he is entirely dependent on his father, whose monthly pensionary income is approximately Rs. 25,000, thereby making the grant of compensation essential.
Court’s Analysis and Directives
Revisiting its earlier observations, the Division Bench called upon the State Government to clarify the compensation proposed for the victim:
“We have already made observations in this regard in our earlier orders. Let the State Government come up with the specific instructions as to what compensation it proposes to pay to the petitioner then we will consider how far it is adequate.”
On the immediate reimbursement of spent medical costs, the Bench laid down a direct payment mechanism:
“In the meantime, if proof of spending Rs.2.5 Lakh towards medical treatment is submitted by the applicant-Sri Jayant Gupta to the A.C.S. aforesaid through Sri V.K. Shahi, learned Additional Advocate General then the same shall be processed and requisite amount shall be paid to him before the next date.”
The Court adopted a similar monthly procedure for his ongoing treatment:
“As regards the current and recurring expenditure for his treatment whether in the hospital or at his home, similar procedure would be adopted, meaning thereby, the applicant-Jayant Gupta shall submit bills in this regard to the A.C.S. aforesaid through office of Sri V.K. Shahi, learned Additional Advocate General who will forward it to the concerned officer and the same shall be processed and the amount would be paid to the applicant every month.”
Regarding the broader measure of institutionalizing relief, Sri V.K. Shahi informed the Bench that pursuant to the Court’s earlier order dated September 9, 2026, a high-level committee has been constituted under the chairmanship of the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to formulate a policy framework or proposal for a statute governing the grant of compensation. Addressing this submission, the Bench observed:
“We hope and trust that the aforesaid high level committee shall come up with a reasonable & fair policy/ proposal in this regard.”
The Decision
Directing that compliance with all other orders issued earlier in these proceedings and the connected matter be demonstrated by the respective parties on the next date of listing, the Division Bench listed the matter for further hearing in the fourth week of November 2026.
Case Title: Shivendu Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 11 others (with connected PIL No. 609 of 2026)
Case No.: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. – 603 of 2026
Bench: Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla
Date: October 16, 2026
