The Allahabad High Court has taken serious exception to the refusal of Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (PVVNL) to grant compensation to the family of a man who died from electrocution while allegedly carrying out electricity repair work on the instructions of a contractual Junior Engineer. Calling the corporation's approach "insensitive" and based on "hyper-technical grounds," the Court directed the Managing Director of PVVNL to appear in person before it.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Phoolchandra, challenged an order dated March 13, 2026, rejecting his claim for compensation under the Office Memorandum dated September 25, 2021. The claim arose after his son, Shiv Kumar Gupta, died due to electrocution while climbing an electricity pole.
According to a report prepared by the Deputy Director, Electrical Safety, Varanasi, Shiv Kumar Gupta had climbed the pole to rectify an electricity fault after being instructed by Hanuman Prasad Patel, a contractual Junior Engineer associated with PVVNL. The report also recommended that appropriate compensation be paid to the deceased's dependants. Despite this, the corporation rejected the claim on the ground that the deceased was not its employee.
Court's Observations
A Division Bench comprising Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan found the corporation's stand to be wholly untenable.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
The Court noted that the Electrical Safety report clearly recorded that the deceased climbed the electricity pole on the instructions of Hanuman Prasad Patel for repair work. It also observed that the corporation had never disputed the authenticity of the report.
Rejecting the respondents' submissions, the Bench said,
"The report conclusively establishes that the deceased undertook the repair work on the instructions of an employee of the respondent-corporation."
The Bench further held that even if the Deputy Director was not legally empowered to recommend compensation, the factual findings recorded in the report remained significant and could not be ignored while deciding the compensation claim.
The Court also dismissed the corporation's argument that Hanuman Prasad Patel was not its employee, observing that the official report specifically identified him as a contractual Junior Engineer of the respondent corporation.
Strong Remarks Against the Corporation
The High Court expressed concern over the manner in which the compensation claim had been rejected.
"The conduct of the respondent-corporation is wholly insensitive and unjustified in denying compensation on such hyper-technical grounds," the Bench observed.
It further noted that the Office Memorandum of September 25, 2021, was intended to provide immediate financial relief to families of persons who lose their lives or suffer injuries due to faults in electricity establishments. Ignoring the findings of the safety report defeated that objective.
The Court also recorded its dissatisfaction with the corporation's handling of the litigation, noting that on an earlier hearing, its junior counsel had stated after obtaining instructions that the corporation was willing to pay ₹7.5 lakh as compensation. However, at the subsequent hearing, senior counsel withdrew from that position and argued the matter on merits without satisfactorily explaining the change.
Court's Decision
Finding the corporation's conduct casual and callous, the Allahabad High Court directed the Managing Director of Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited to remain personally present before the Court on July 13, 2026, to explain how the compensation claim had been denied despite the findings in the official safety report.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 13, 2026.
Case Details:
Case Title: Phoolchandra v. Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Limited (D.L.W.) Bhikharipur Varanasi and Another
Case Number: Writ - C No. 15130 of 2026
Judge: Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan
Decision Date: 8 July 2026
