FAO/406/2011 on 12 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO No. 406

of 2011 Reserved on: 23.09.2026 Date of decision: 12.10.2026 Date of Uploading on website: 12.10.2026 ________________________________________________ Savitri Devi & Anr. .....Appellants Versus HPSEB …..Respondent ________________________________________________

Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Harshita Dogra and Ms. Manisha Kumari, Advocates. Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants, who were the petitioners before the learned Court below, against the award dated 03.09.2011, passed by learned Commissioner, under Employee’s Compensation Act, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Commissioner below”), in Case No. 15/2 of 2011/2008, whereby the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was dismissed. The parties shall be

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

referred to as they were before the learned Commissioner below.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Jeet Ram (since deceased) was working as a T-mate with the respondent-Board since 1987 and at the time of his death, he was a regular employee of the respondent and was drawing Rs. 9,000/- per month as his wages. On 27.02.2008, after 5:00 P.M., when he was coming home from his office situated at Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla, he had an accidental fall near HPSEB residential quarters near Kennedy House, Shimla. After the fall, he was not noticed by anyone and remained lying at the place of accident for about 3-4 hours in a serious injured condition. It was only at about 9:00 P.M., when he was noticed by some persons and was brought to his residence. On the next day, at about 7:00 A.M. he was taken to IGMC, Shimla for treatment, but he was declared brought dead. At the time of his death, the deceased was 40 years of age and was only earning member of the family, as such, the petitioners, being dependents upon the deceased, preferred the claim petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-.

3. The respondent, by filing reply, contested the petition by taking preliminary objections qua maintainability on the ground that the deceased did not fall under the definition of Workman, as envisaged under Section 2(h) of the Act and that even otherwise the accident in question could not be held to have occurred during the course of his employment. On merits, it has been admitted that initially the deceased had been employed as a T-mate, however, subsequently due to the shortage of the staff, it was decided by the Board vide Office Order dated 18.05.2008 that 11 T- mates/Baildars possessing middle or above qualification shall be deployed in various offices at Head Quarter as Peon without extra financial benefits. Pursuant to aforesaid order, Additional Superintending Engineer, City Electricity Division, HPSEB Shimla, relieved the deceased vide Office Order dated 25.08.2005 and thereafter on 29.08.2005, he joined duty as Peon in the Branch Office of Personal Officer of the Board. The aforesaid arrangement was also accepted by the deceased and since then, he had been performing his duties as a Peon. It has been stated that the accident involving deceased by no stretch of imagination could be held to have arisen during the course of his employment.

4. On pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 25.02.2009:- “1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get the compensation amount against the respondent which is in the tune of Rs. 10 lac alongwith interest? OPP

2. Relief”

5. After the parties led evidence and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

6. Feeling dissatisfied, the appellants preferred the instant appeal under Section 30 of the Act for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 03.09.2011, which was admitted on 11.01.2012 on the following substantial questions of law: “(i) Whether the learned Commissioner has erred in law by holding that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants/claimants Sh. Jeet Ram could not be held to be a workman or an employee under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923 or Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 and that the petition was not maintainable?

2. Whether the learned Commissioner has erred in law by overlooking for no valid reasons that the mere fact that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants/claimants had been deputed to perform duties of a peon in the office of the HPSEB the same did not take away his status of a T-mate and as such a workman especially when he had not been given any extra financial benefit for performing duties of Peon?”

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 and carefully examined the entire record.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Commissioner below has erred in law by not holding the deceased to be a Workman or an Employee under the Act, as even while performing the duties as Peon, the deceased was entitled to the protection under the Act. He further contended that the mere fact that services of the deceased stood regularized by the respondent did not change the status of the deceased, as regards, the protection afforded under the Act. With these submissions, he prayed for acceptance of the present appeal.

9. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal.

10. It is an admitted case of the parties that Jeet Ram (since deceased) was earlier working as T-mate, but had subsequently been performing the duties of a Peon in one of the Offices of the respondent-board. It is also an admitted fact that after office hours, the deceased met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries.

11. Now the first question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether deceased Jeet Ram can be said to be a workman. In support of their claim, petitioner No. 1, Savitri Devi, herself appeared in the witness box as PW-4 and also examined Gulab Singh, Superintendent posted in the office of respondent, as PW-3, who tendered in evidence copy of joining report dated 29.08.2005 of deceased Jeet Ram as Ext. PW-3/X,. The perusal of aforesaid document reveals that on 29.08.2005, the deceased had submitted joining report in the office of Under Secretary of the respondent-board, pursuant to order dated 25.08.2005, issued by Executive Engineer, City Division Shimla. Ext. PW-3/B is the copy of order vide which 11 T-mates/Beldars possessing middle and above academic qualification, who were working against personal post, had been deployed in the office of the respondent-board situated at Head Quarters to perform the duties of Peon. Vide Ext. PW-3/X, the deceased while giving joining had categorically written under his name and signature that he had been performing the duties of a Peon. PW-3, Gulab Singh has stated that prior to the accident, the deceased had been performing the duties of the Peon in the Secretariat of the respondent-board.

12. It is not in dispute that the accident had taken place on 27.02.2008. The perusal of the record reveals that since 29.08.2005, deceased Jeet Ram had been performing the duties of peon. Therefore, the learned Commissioner below had rightly held that the duties of Peon working in an office could not be equated with a T-mate, posted in Electricity Department, whose duties included to set up, maintain, repair or to take down any over head electric line or fittings and fixtures as defined under Clause (ix) of Schedule-II. It is also an admitted fact that at the time of death,his services had been regularized and he had been receiving the salary and not wages, as is evident from the salary certificate, Ext. PW-3/A. Therefore, case of the deceased does not fall under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Moreover, the petitioners have also failed to show that the deceased had died during the course of his employment.

13. In view of my aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any infirmity and illegality in the award passed by the learned Commissioner below. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly.

14. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellants being devoid of any merit is dismissed and the impugned award dated 03.09.2011 is upheld.

15. No other point was urged before me.

16. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending applications, if any.

( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 12th October, 2025 (raman)