The Allahabad High Court has summoned the Managing Director of Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited to personally appear before it after the state-run power corporation rejected a compensation claim for a fatal electrocution using hyper-technical objections. A division bench comprising Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan directed the top official’s personal appearance on July 13, 2026, expressing strong disapproval over the utility’s casual denial of the genuine claim and its counsel’s subsequent conduct in court.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a writ petition filed by Phoolchandra, challenging an order dated March 13, 2026, issued by the respondent-corporation’s authorities (respondent no. 2). The impugned order had rejected Phoolchandra’s claim for compensation under an Office Memorandum dated September 25, 2021. This memorandum was specifically enacted to provide immediate financial relief to the dependents of individuals who lose their lives or suffer injuries in accidents occurring due to faults within electricity establishments.
The corporation had rejected the claim on the sole ground that the deceased, Shiv Kumar Gupta, was not an employee of the utility. However, a formal investigation report submitted by the Deputy Director of Electrical Safety, Varanasi, recorded that the deceased climbed the electric pole to rectify a technical fault upon the direct instructions of Hanuman Prasad Patel, a Junior Engineer and contractual employee of the respondent-corporation. Based on these findings, the Deputy Director recommended that appropriate compensation be granted to the dependents of the deceased.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner argued that the Deputy Director’s report conclusively proved that the deceased undertook the hazardous work under the instructions of an employee of the respondent-corporation, and therefore, the family was entitled to compensation under the 2021 Office Memorandum.
The respondent-corporation’s legal stance shifted significantly during the proceedings. On July 2, 2026, a junior advocate holding brief for the corporation’s panel counsel stated that the utility was ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs. 7,50,000 to the petitioner in accordance with the Office Memorandum.
However, at the next hearing, panel counsel Sri Udit Chandra resiled from the junior counsel’s statement and argued the case on its merits. Chandra contended that the court had misread the inquiry report, which he claimed actually favored the corporation. He raised multiple legal objections:
- Under Section 161 of the Electricity Act, the Electrical Inspector is only empowered to submit an inquiry report and has no legal authority to recommend the payment of compensation.
- Hanuman Prasad Patel was not an employee of the corporation and therefore lacked the authority to direct the deceased to climb the electric pole.
- Under Rule 36 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, an electrical shutdown can only be granted upon a request made by an authorized officer. Since no authorized officer was present, no shutdown could be made by the respondents, meaning there was no illegality in the denial of the claim.
The Court’s Analysis
The High Court dismissed the corporation’s arguments, declaring them to be “wholly misconceived.”
The bench pointed out that the electricity department had never disputed the authenticity or correctness of the Deputy Director’s report. Addressing the argument regarding the inspector’s authority, the court observed that even if the Deputy Director could not formally recommend compensation, the report unequivocally established that the deceased climbed the pole on the instructions of Hanuman Prasad Patel, who was identified as a Junior Engineer and contractual employee of the utility. The court held that once a competent officer records such a categorical finding, the corporation cannot deny its responsibility by claiming Patel was not its employee.
Critiquing the utility’s technical defense regarding shutdown permissions, the court observed that such arguments were entirely irrelevant to the tragedy. The bench remarked:
“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.”
The court referenced the Hindi text of the inquiry report, which detailed how the accident occurred inside the premises of Primary School Rakhauli, Jaunpur, due to non-compliance with Rule 36(2) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. The report confirmed that the contractual employee, Hanuman Prasad Patel, directed the deceased to rectify the electrical fault without obtaining a shutdown, resulting in electrocution.
The Court’s Decision
The High Court expressed deep dissatisfaction with how the utility handled the matter, stating:
“This, Court expresses it’s serious concern about the lax and negligent manner in which the respondent-corporation has dealt with the issue involved.”
Consequently, the court ordered the Managing Director of Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited to remain personally present in court on July 13, 2026, to explain how the corporation’s officers acted in such a casual and callous manner.
The court also strongly condemned the conduct of the respondents’ counsel. The bench noted that after the order was dictated, the counsel submitted that the court was compelling the respondents to comply with the order “at gunpoint.” The bench stated that it failed to understand the tenor and propriety of such a submission from a counsel who is an officer of the court. The court refused the counsel’s request to postpone the next hearing date, stating that the court cannot fix dates according to the convenience of counsel.
Case Details
Case Title: Phoolchandra Versus Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Limited (D.L.W.) Bhikharipur Varanasi And Another
Case No.: WRIT-C No. 15130 of 2026
Bench: Justice Saral Srivastava, Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan
Date: July 8, 2026
