[Bhavnagar Sewer Deaths] Gujarat High Court Orders Independent Inquiry into Sanitation Workers' Death Based On Factual Report By Municipal Corp
The Gujarat High Court instructed the Principal Secretary of the Urban Development and Urban Housing Department (UDUHD) to conduct an independent inquiry based on the factual report provided by the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Bhavnagar, pertaining to the incident in Bhavnagar, Gujarat, where a sanitation worker lost his life, and another fell ill while cleaning a septic tank on...
The Gujarat High Court instructed the Principal Secretary of the Urban Development and Urban Housing Department (UDUHD) to conduct an independent inquiry based on the factual report provided by the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Bhavnagar, pertaining to the incident in Bhavnagar, Gujarat, where a sanitation worker lost his life, and another fell ill while cleaning a septic tank on the premises of a government laboratory in November 2023.
In its directive, the court has mandated that the Principal Secy, UDUHD, submit a comprehensive report within three weeks. The report should include findings on the culpability of the officials involved and outline the proposed actions against them, the Court ordered.
The counsel appearing on behalf of UDUHD informed the court that among the 16 workers, compensation had been received by only 5 individuals. She added that for 7 individuals, compensation had not been received due to the absence of details regarding their heirs.
At this point, Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal interrupted and inquired whether any efforts had been made to identify the heirs of the deceased.
CJ Agarwal stated, “They are the persons who were the sanitation workers engaged by the corporation. so their addresses might be theirs. The details of their heirs must be there. The details of their heirs, their family members can be worked out. What you're doing is issuing a public notice asking people to come forward to submit their claims.”
“What is the purpose of that public notice? They are the persons whose whereabouts are known. They are engaged by the corporation. Right? They must have the details.why can't you make an inquiry?” CJ Agarwal further questioned.
The counsel explained that the concerned corporation had provided them with this reason.
The court proposed conducting an inquiry with various chief officers and relevant municipalities to understand their approach to the disbursement of compensation. Additionally, the court recommended seeking information about the family members involved in the matter.
“What they are doing is publishing notices in public newspapers. Where is the purpose of doing this? This is not the method of payment of compensation,” CJ Agarwal inquired.
The counsel responded, stating that this is the approach adopted by the relevant establishments.
In the order, Chief Justice directed:
"We fail to understand as to when the sanitation workers were engaged by the different corporations and municipalities, why they cannot ascertain the dependent, heirs and legal representatives of deceased workers. We do not approve the manner in which the public notice has been issued by some municipalities/corporations for search of legal heirs of the deceased. The appropriate course of action for the municipalities / corporation was to verify from its own record as to the whereabouts such as residence etc., of the deceased sanitation workers and to find out as to who are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased workers. Mr. Subramaniam, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner may also assist the concerned corporation in this regard.”
Advocate Subramaniam Iyer interjected, highlighting that the Court had previously instructed that even if a sanitation worker died from causes unrelated to suffocation in severe conditions, compensation should still be provided. Counsel Iyer specifically pointed out a case where compensation was denied to the heirs of a sanitation worker who died due to sand falling on him.
Chief Justice Agarwal, noted the denial of compensation to Deetabhai Makhanabhai Bhulia's heirs for the incident on 15.04.2001, where it was argued that the death did not result from soil falling on him, expressed disagreement.
CJ stated, “The further assertion that the court therein had paid compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased is liable to be discarded.”
Furthermore, she called upon the chief officer of Anand Nagar Palika to submit a personal affidavit, explaining how and why compensation was denied to the aforementioned deceased sanitation worker.
She further noted in the order that since no independent inquiry had been conducted, the principal secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department would need to conduct an independent inquiry to consider the factual report submitted by the Commissioner, municipal corporation, Bhavnagar and submit a report within 3 weeks, imposing liability on the erring officials and the action proposed against them."