Gujarat High Court pulls up govt for FIR against sanitation worker who went down a septic tank | Ahmedabad News

The Gujarat High Court on Friday condemned the state government for filing an FIR against a contractual sanitation worker for “deliberately” entering a tank even though manual flushing was banned. The court found that such responsibility cannot be imposed on the employee who performs this work only to support his family.

The court's remark came as Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha Mayee were hearing a public interest litigation filed by Ahmedabad-based NGO Manav Garima seeking strict implementation of the ban on employment as manual scavengers and its Rehabilitation Act, 2013 .

In November 2023, a sanitation worker had died and another had sustained serious injuries while cleaning a sewage tank at the Bhavnagar campus of the Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute (CSMCRI). The court had earlier directed the state government to conduct an inquiry into the incident and submit a report on it along with the measures taken and proposed.

On Friday, the government advisor, based on the findings of an expert committee, told the court that the Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation (BMC) had not appointed a supervisor at the site of the incident despite being required to do so. While a nodal officer is appointed by the municipal corporation, he does not supervise these works and has not appointed a supervisor to supervise these works, it said. The committee also suggested an intra-departmental inquiry against BMC's executive engineer.

The panel further recommended that companies appoint nodal officers “for frequent and regular inspections and audits of sewage tank cleaning works.”

However, the proposal did not impress the bank. “There are loopholes and negligence on the part of the company…It is said that the company's supervisor never stays present. There should be a nodal officer of the company. So who will conduct the investigation? Corporation? For their own mistakes?” CJ Agarwal remarked.

The investigation determined that the said septic tank was unsafe for future cleaning and revealed that it did not have a vent pipe through which dangerous gases could escape. The committee suggested “immediate corrective action in the construction of the tank and action against the authority for defective construction.”

The committee found serious lapses on the part of CSMCRI and recommended payment of compensation of Rs 30 lakh to the heirs of the deceased.

The court has sought a personal affidavit from the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department with details of the action taken following the findings of the inquiry report.

Furthermore, the committee recommended action against the surviving sanitation worker – Sureshbhai Garaniya – on the grounds that he “deliberately entered the tank” in the absence of the civic team despite several warnings from BMC officials. He was regularly employed by CSMCRI for sewage/septic tank cleaning.

Given the fact that he regularly took up this work at the institute, the committee concluded that he was “a regular offender” and the court was informed that BMC had lodged an FIR against Garaniya for “irresponsible and ignorant conduct”. has.

However, CJ Agarwal noted, “Please do not shift this responsibility to the employee. He only cares about the money he gets; he is a contract worker. He knows he can't support his family if he doesn't do the things that were asked of him… He needs money, so he does it. You can’t let that happen.”

Meanwhile, the PIL also deals with non-payment of compensation to the families of those who died during manual scavenging between 1993 and 2014. In one such incident from Anand, the government had earlier pointed out that the relatives were not paid as the deceased had not died by inhaling dangerous gases but because he had been buried under the sand during the construction of a sewage pipeline. The court had sought a response from the Anand municipality in this regard.

On Friday, the municipality's lawyer reiterated in court that the said incident was not a manual cleaning, but a death during the construction of a new sewer line. The contractor subsequently paid compensation of Rs 1.85 lakh to the family, the lawyer added.

However, the chamber also emphasized the civil corporation's obligation to pay compensation as vicarious agents.

“Why wouldn’t you compensate him? You are the municipality, you were the main employer, you hired the contractor, you cannot deny him compensation… For any mishap and problems affecting the people hired by the contractor, the main employer is equally liable. You are vicariously liable for any failure on the part of the contractor. They have to pay in addition to what the contractor paid,” noted CJ Agarwal.