High Court Raps Gujarat Govt For Delay In Compensating Families Of Deceased Manual Scavengers

The Court presided over by Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee, emphasized adherence to the Apex court's judgment and expressed dissatisfaction with the government's handling of compensation disbursement.

The court was hearing a PIL by an Ahmedabad-based NGO Manav Garima seeking proper implementation of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, and Rules made therein and further for payment of proper compensation to the workers who lost their lives due to manual scavenging.

The NGO had also filed an application in 2023 after the deaths of two sanitation workers in Rajkot in March last year seeking compensation for the deceased workers' families.

Counsel Subramaniam Iyer, representing the petitioners, informed the bench that the latest order in the petition, dated 27.09.2023, had directed attention to the absence of information concerning eighteen individuals allegedly deceased due to manual scavenging. The court had directed the petitioner's counsel to submit an affidavit containing the necessary details at the present hearing.

Counsel apprised the court that the state authorities pledged to take every necessary measure to ensure compliance with the law, and had also expressed their commitment to minimizing accidents and preventing any further loss of life.

The court was also informed by the counsel that compensation had not yet been disbursed to 16 deceased manual scavengers.

CJ Agarwal inquired of counsel Iyer whether the list containing the names of 16 individuals, provided by him, was part of any previously filed list accompanying the writ petition. Seeking clarification, she urged the counsel to shed light on the matter and suggested that the bench could address it within the next 15-20 minutes.

Emphasizing a reluctance to handle matters in a fragmented manner, she added, "We are not hearing any matter in “piecemeal”, we are asking you this question for some reason. So, show us the list which is on record where these 16 names are already there

The AGP then interrupted, stating, “One aspect as the officer of the court. I have been getting them updated with reference to compensation.”

In response, the Chief Justice remarked that the Court was not engaged in a game of hide-and-seek and took exception to the fact that every time someone came forward seeking compensation, the State counsel requested time to seek instructions. It said: 

“Mr. Counsel this is “not hide and seek”. Every time they will come forward and they will say 18 not paid - then 16 not paid and every time you will ask the Court to seek instructions about payment and then you will pay three persons and then we will run against you, so it is not a hide and seek game. So let us be clear about whether this list was there then you have to at least give this much explanation as to why you have not paid them. reason has to be there,” she asserted.

Continuing, she emphasized, “Everytime we're running behind you. we're not playing a game here. it's not a joke; don't take it lightly.”

The Court then passed over the matter and upon resumption, Counsel Iyer updated the bench on the precise page and annexure containing the list of 16 manual scavengers.

Additionally, the Counsel brought to the bench's attention the Supreme Court's directives in the case of Dr. Balram Singh vs. UOI and Ors, whereby the compensation for victims has been increased from 10 lakh to 30 lakh, specifically for those who are yet to receive payment.

The counsel also brought to the attention of the bench a recent incident in Bhavnagar, Gujarat, where a sanitation worker lost his life while another fell ill while cleaning a septic tank on the premises of a government laboratory. The incident occurred in November 2023.

The Chief Justice asked the petitioner's counsel to submit an application, adding the Bhavnagar Municipality to the proceedings, and assured that the court would initiate an inquiry against them.

Furthermore, the Chief Justice instructed the AGP to inquire about the steps taken by the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, in this matter, specifically whether the state government had conducted any investigations.

The Court also instructed the Principal Secretary to provide a report on the incident in Bhavnagar in a personal affidavit, to be filed on the next scheduled date.

She then questioned the AGP about the status of the 16 individuals and inquired why they hadn't received compensation. The AGP responded, stating that, based on their updated records, only 8 individuals had not been paid.

Expressing dissatisfaction, the Chief Justice responded sharply by saying, “What do you mean by update list? Mr counsel there's a list. We are not playing a game of list vs list. come out with specific names as to how many out of these 16 you are paying and how many you are not playing and why you are not paying. Where is the detail?”

Seeking detailed information, she pressed further, challenging the AGP to provide explanations for the non-payment of the remaining 8 individuals.

The CJ conveyed a sense of urgency, stating that they had already given sufficient time and warned against the consequences of not providing a satisfactory explanation.

In a firm tone, she cautioned the AGP, saying, “If we read all the affidavits, you will be in difficulty. don't force us to do that. Do you have any explanation for the non-payment of these 16 persons? Do you have anything on the affidavit as to why they are not entitled to and why you are not paying them?”

The counsel replied, stating that he would provide a detailed list with reasons for each individual, specifying who should and should not be paid.

The Chief Justice also emphasized that there was no need to wait for the Court's order to initiate the inquiry, and said, “This is a kind of seeking game. PAKDO TOH JAANE.. We're running behind you and you're running away.”

While dictating the order, the Court directed the Principal Secretary to submit a personal affidavit detailing the reasons for compensating the 16 workers whose names were listed.

The Court emphasized that the relevant officer must consider this decision of the apex court in the judgment dated 20.10.23 in WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 324 OF 2020 (Dr. Balram Singh vs. UOI and Ors) while making adjustments for dependents from the date of the said judgment.

The matter is now scheduled for further consideration on 18/01/2024.