Principal Employer Cannot Evade Responsibility For Immediate Medical Aid To Critically Injured Contract Worker: Chhattisgarh High Court - 2025-08-28

Latest Legal Developments.

Chhattisgarh High Court Intervenes as Railways Denies Aid to Electrocuted Contract Worker; Top Officials Summoned

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – The High Court of Chhattisgarh took swift suo moto cognizance of a news report detailing the plight of a critically injured contract worker, summoning top railway officials and directing them to ensure the man receives immediate and unhindered medical treatment. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru took a stern view of the South East Central Railway's (SECR) attempt to shirk responsibility, emphasizing that the primary concern is saving the victim's life.

Background of the Case

The Court initiated a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) based on a report in the 'Dainik Bhaskar' newspaper. The report highlighted the tragic incident of a young contractual employee who suffered 70% burns after coming into contact with a live Overhead Equipment (OHE) wire while repairing an AC coach at the Railway Coaching Depot in Bilaspur.

The victim, an employee of Kumar Engineering (a railway contractor), is battling for his life at Apollo Hospital. His family, unable to afford the escalating medical bills, was allegedly turned away by railway authorities, who claimed there was no provision for compensating or assisting contract workers and that the contractor was solely responsible for all expenses.

Court's Stern Intervention

Observing the gravity of the situation, the High Court refused to grant the railway's counsel time to seek instructions, calling the plea a reflection of a "lack of seriousness... when the person concerned is presently admitted in hospital and struggling for his life."

In an immediate and decisive move, the Bench ordered the General Manager (GM) and the Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) of SECR, Bilaspur, to appear before the court via video conferencing on the same day.

Pivotal Court Observation: "Such a plea, in the considered view of this Court, reflects a lack of seriousness on the part of the respondent-Railways, particularly when the person concerned is presently admitted in hospital and struggling for his life."

Arguments and Court's Directive

During the subsequent hearing, SECR General Manager Mr. Tarun Prakash appeared and attempted to distance the Railways from the incident. He argued that the victim was an employee of the contractor (respondent No. 6) and had "unauthorisedly climbed the coach," absolving the Railways of responsibility. He mentioned that a meeting was being held with the contractor and the family to "work out" financial aid.

Unimpressed by this line of argument, the High Court prioritized the victim's well-being over procedural blame-shifting. The Bench underscored its primary objective in no uncertain terms.

Court's Primary Concern: "At this stage, the primary concern of this Court is to provide all the necessary medical assistance to the victim who is fighting for his life in the Hospital and the financial burden should not come in the way of getting the best possible treatment for him."

Final Orders and Implications

The High Court has directed the General Manager of SECR to file a personal affidavit within three days, detailing: 1. The financial assistance that the Railway or the contractor proposes to provide or has already provided to the victim. 2. An explanation of who was responsible for the negligence that led to the accident. 3. What action, if any, has been taken against the contractor if they are found to be at fault.

The proprietor of Kumar Engineering has also been directed to be present at the next hearing on September 2, 2025. This order firmly places the onus on the principal employer—the Railways—to ensure accountability and immediate relief, setting a significant precedent for the welfare of contractual staff working in hazardous conditions. The court's intervention highlights the judiciary's role in safeguarding the fundamental right to life and health, especially for vulnerable workers.