The petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are the wife, daughter and son respectively of one Chenchaiah, who met the watery death on 18.1.2014 when he was clearing the drain. The post mortem report (Annexure-G) also states that the death is due to asphyxia as a result of drowning. The second respondent Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (B.B.M.P.) has already given the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/. The dependants of the deceased Chenchaiah are agitating their entitlement to rehabilitation, etc.

2. Ms. Maitreyi Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for Sri Clifton D’ Rozario for the petitioners submits that statements of the three eyewitnesses which are Annexures to the charge sheet clearly indicate that the Supervisor, Sri Ramesh had put the deceased and five to six other safai karmikas on the job in question on the fateful day.

3. The learned counsel brings to my notice the relevant provisions of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 [‘the said Act’ for short] to support the submission that the law entitles the dependents of manual scavengers to certain benefits like allotment of residential plot, cash assistance, etc. She assiduously draws my attention to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR DIGNITY AND RIGHTS OF SEWERAGE AND ALLIED WORKERS AND ORS. reported in 2011 (7) SCALE 489. Paragraph No.20 of the said decision read out by her is as follows:

“20. These judgments are complete answer to the Appellant's objection to the maintainability of the writ petition filed by Respondent No.1. What the High Court has done by entertaining the writ petition and issuing directions for protection of the persons employed to do work relating to sewage operations is part of its obligation to do justice to the disadvantaged and poor sections of the society. We may add that the superior Courts will be failing in their constitutional duty if they decline to entertain petitions filed by genuine social groups, NG Os and social workers for espousing the cause of those who are deprived of the basic rights available to every human being, what to say of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. It is the duty of the judicial constituent of the State like its political and executive constituents to protect the rights of every citizen and every individual and ensure that everyone is able to live with dignity. Given the option, no one would like to enter the manhole of sewage system for cleaning purposes, but there are people who are forced to undertake such hazardous jobs with the hope that at the end of the day they will be able to make some money and feed their family. They risk their lives for the comfort of others. Unfortunately, for last few decades, a substantial segment of the urban society has become insensitive to the plight of the poor and downtrodden including those, who, on account of sheer economic compulsions, undertake jobs/works which are inherently dangerous to life. People belonging to this segment do not want to understand why a person is made to enter manhole without safety gears and proper equipments. They look the other way when the body of a worker who dies in the manhole is taken out with the help of ropes and cranes. In this scenario, the Courts are not only entitled but are under constitutional obligation to take cognizance of the issues relating to the lives of the people who are forced to undertake jobs which are hazardous and dangerous to life. It will be a tragic and sad day when the superior Courts will shut their doors for those, who without any motive for personal gain or other extraneous reasons, come forward to seek protection and enforcement of the legal and constitutional rights of the poor, downtrodden and disadvantaged sections of the society. If the system can devote hours, days and months to hear the elitist class of eminent advocates who are engaged by those who are accused of evading payment of taxes an