Patna High Court
Lagan Deo Sah vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 29 July, 2025
Author: Alok Kumar Sinha
Bench: Alok Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13074 of 2015
======================================================
Lagan Deo Sah S/o Kamal Sah son of Shaligram Singh P.O. Sonamani
Gudam, P.S. Sonamani Gudam, District Araria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Department Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Collector, District Araria.
6. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, District Araria.
7. The Block Development Officer, Kursakaanta, District Araria.
8. The In-charge, Primary Health Centre, Kursakaanta, District Araria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Md. Waliur Rahman, Advocate
Md. Nishant Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. N.K. Singh- SC-2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 29-07-2025
Heard the parties
2. The petitioner in the present writ application seeks the
following main relief:
(i) For issuance of appropriate Writ/ Writs,
Order/Orders, Direction/ Directions
commanding the Respondents to give
compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten
Lakhs Only) to the Petitioner, which was
Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025
2/18
assured to the parents/guardians of the
deceased children by the Respondents as
policy matter of the State when 20 children
died after unsafe vaccination of Encephalitis
in Araria District due to gross negligence of
the authorities entrusted with the work of such
vaccination and due to gross negligence of the
authorities in treatment of such children, who
died due to complications developed after such
vaccination.
(ii) FOR issuance of appropriate Writ /Writs,
Order / Orders, Direction / Directions
commanding the Respondents to give
government job to one family member of the
Petitioner, which was assured to the
parents/guardians of the deceased children by
the Respondents as policy matter of the State
when 20 children died after unsafe vaccination
of Encephalitis in Araria District due to gross
negligence of the authorities entrusted with the
work of such vaccination and due to gross
negligence of the authorities in treatment of
such children, who died due to complications
developed after such vaccination."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on
12.12.2013
, the petitioner's minor children, namely Jitu Kumar
Sah (aged about 9 years) and Sita Kumari (aged about 10 years),
were vaccinated for Encephalitis at their government school by
Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025
health workers. Immediately after receiving the vaccination, both
children developed severe complications and high fever. To
support this, the health cards of the children have been annexed as
Annexure-1 Series.
4. It is further submitted that the petitioner, upon being
informed of his children's deteriorating condition, took them to the
Primary Health Centre, Kursakaanta. However, the concerned
respondent (Respondent No. 8) only assured the petitioner that
nothing would happen, and then left the health centre without
further bothering to attend the children. During this time, the
children's condition worsened. The petitioner attempted to take his
children to Sadar Hospital, Araria, but unfortunately, his son, Jitu
Kumar Sah, passed away while his daughter could somehow be
saved.
5. Learned counsel has pointed out that the same
incident occurred with about 20 other children in Araria district, all
belonging to poor, unprivileged families and from SC/ST or
minority communities. Owing to mass protests, the authorities
assured the families of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-
and a government job for one family member. However, only Rs.
20,000/- was paid to the petitioner via cheque dated 31.01.2014,
which he has not encashed (Annexure-2) till date.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025
6. The petitioner further submits that as the authorities
did not fulfill their assurance, he made representations before the
Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Bihar, and the Collector,
Araria, on 18.04.2014 (Annexure-3 Series).
7. Later Respondent No. 6, by Letter No. 706 dated
02.07.2014, communicated to Respondent No. 5 about the death of
several children, including the petitioner's son, attributing the
deaths to Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (Annexure-4).
8. The petitioner also represented his grievance to the
Hon'ble Minister of Welfare on 05.07.2014, and a public petition
was submitted to the Hon'ble Minister of Health on 10.07.2014.
9. Learned counsel further contends that after more than
9 months from the incident, Respondent No. 6, vide Letter No. 987
dated 22.09.2014, submitted an enquiry report to Respondent No.
5, stating that 10 children died due to Acute Encephalitis
Syndrome and held that no compensation could be provided for
such deaths. The petitioner challenges this report as illegal and
absurd, alleging that the deaths were due to unsafe and negligent
vaccination, as only those children who received the vaccine died
immediately. The petitioner is stated to still be running from pillar
to post for redressal of his grievances, but the authorities have not
addressed the issue.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025
10. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 submits
that there is no provision for payment of compensation in the case
of death due to Encephalitis by the Health Department. The
decision to grant any compensation or relief rests with the State
Government or Central Government, and not the respondent
personally. The petitioner must prove through documentary
evidence whether any such policy exists regarding compensation
for Encephalitis deaths.
11. Regarding allegations of unsafe vaccination, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 6 submits that no promise had been
made by the respondent to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000 to
any victim. It is further submitted that after the vaccination
program held on 12.12.2013, 394 children were vaccinated and
none of them made any complaint about unsafe vaccination. The
vaccinations were administered by well-trained Para Medical staff,
following all basic precautions. After the unfortunate deaths of
children in Araria District, an enquiry committee was formed. The
committee submitted its report on 25.07.2014, stating clearly that
there was no negligence in vaccination and the vaccines used were
not expired. The report also noted that all five children vaccinated
at one site were covered, and had there been any issue with the
vaccine, all five would have suffered, but this was not the case.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025
Therefore the present writ application is bad in law and not
maintainable as it has been filed only to defame the authorities
with false and frivolous claims, lacking any valid legal basis or
documentary support.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits
that according to the reports from the District Magistrates of
Muzaffarpur, East Champaran, West Champaran, Shivhar and
Bhagalpur, funds of Rs.564.00 lakh have been sent to the
concerned districts from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund for the
payment of compensation to the parents or guardians of a total of
141 children who died due to encephalitis. This payment was made
as per a detailed statement attached to the counter affidavit.
13. Learned counsel for respondent no, 2 further submits
that a letter dated 12.01.2021 was issued by the Chief Minister
Relief Fund, Bihar, authorizing the ex-gratia grant. However, it has
been clarified that there is no government scheme for providing
ex-gratia grant to the guardians of patients who died due to Acute
Encephalitis Syndrome (AES). The fund is made available from
time to time from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund, at the
discretion of the authorities, to provide compensation for such
deaths. There is no automatic entitlement or regular government
scheme for such ex-gratia payments. It is further submitted that if
Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025
someone dies due to lack of timely treatment in a Government
Hospital, the concerned persons are identified and legal action is
taken for negligence, but there is again no provision for
compensation by default in such cases. It is also submitted that the
petitioner's claims of entitlement to compensation or job on this
basis are not supported by any government scheme or policy.
Therefore this writ application lacks material evidence and is
liable to be dismissed.
ISSUES IN QUESTION
(i) Whether there existed any policy of the State
Government in the year 2013 for payment of compensation to
parents/guardians of children who died due to Acute Encephalitis
Syndrome (AES)?
(ii) Whether there has been any negligence on the part of
government officials or medical staff with respect to the
vaccination ?
(iii) Whether the enquiry conducted by the authorities
regarding the cause of death of the children was fair and in
accordance with law and whether its findings are sustainable?
(iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any further
relief, including enhanced compensation, as a matter of right or in
equity?
Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025
FINDINGS
Issue 1: Whether there existed any policy of the State
Government in the year 2013 for payment of compensation to
parents/guardians of children who died due to Acute
Encephalitis Syndrome (AES)?
Upon perusal of the records it was observed that there
was no statutory or codified policy of the Government of Bihar in
the year 2013 specifically providing for the payment of
compensation to the family members of children who died due to
Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES), ex-gratia payments were, in
fact, made in several cases from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund,
as per administrative discretion.
The records reflect that Rs. 564.00 lakh was disbursed to
various districts for compensating 141 affected families. However,
this was done not under any pre-existing enforceable scheme, but
purely as a matter of governmental discretion. It is also clarified by
the respondents that no uniform entitlement exists, and each case
is considered independently based on administrative satisfaction.
The petitioner has failed to produce any government
resolution, circular, or written directive which may show that in
2013, a policy decision was formally taken by the State
Government for payment of compensation in cases of death due to
Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025
AES. Similarly, no documentary evidence has been brought on
record to support the claim that ₹10,00,000/- and a government
job were assured as a matter of right.
Accordingly, this Court holds that in the year 2013, there
existed no declared policy of the State Government mandating the
payment of compensation to the parents or guardians of children
who died due to Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES). The
payments made, if any, were discretionary in nature, flowing from
the Chief Minister's Relief Fund, and cannot confer any
enforceable right upon the petitioner in absence of a formal
governmental scheme or policy.
Issue 2: Whether there has been any negligence on the part of
government officials or medical staff with respect to the
vaccination?
After carefully considering the rival submissions of the
parties, the material placed on record, and the contents of the
enquiry reports submitted by the authorities, this Court observes
that in cases where multiple children were vaccinated at the same
site, not all suffered adverse reactions, and thus casting doubt on
any generalized claim of unsafe vaccines is baseless to an extent
unless some material evidence is produced to support the claim.
Also, the enquiry report attributed the deaths to Acute Encephalitis
Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025
Syndrome (AES) and concluded that there was no medical
negligence involved in either the vaccination process or the
vaccine itself.
Issue 3: Whether the enquiry conducted by the authorities
regarding the cause of death of the children was fair and in
accordance with law and whether its findings are sustainable?
Upon a careful consideration of the materials placed on
record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this
Court finds that the enquiry into the unfortunate deaths of the
children, including the petitioner's son, was duly initiated and
conducted by a competent committee constituted by the Health
Department, Government of Bihar. The report, dated 25.07.2014,
was submitted after a thorough investigation and in compliance
with the procedures laid down for such public health-related
inquiries.
The enquiry committee comprised qualified medical and
administrative personnel and based its conclusions on clinical
records, vaccination data, field investigation, and scientific
evaluation. The findings of the report clearly state that the deaths
were attributable to Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES) and not
due to any negligence in the vaccination process. It was observed
that:
Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025
(a) A total of 394 children were vaccinated at the
concerned location on 12.12.2013.
(b) The vaccinations were administered by trained para-
medical staff, following due protocols.
(c) The vaccines used were not expired, and no
irregularities were found in the cold chain or handling.
In locations where multiple children were vaccinated
from the same batch, not all experienced adverse reactions,
suggesting no defect or negligence in the vaccine itself. The
enquiry was conducted in accordance with administrative
procedure and health department norms. There is no material on
record to show that the proceedings were biased, arbitrary, or
conducted in violation of law.
The petitioner's claim that the inquiry was delayed or
inadequate lacks merit, as such investigations require careful data
collection, expert evaluation, and administrative coordination. A
delay of a few months in finalizing such a report--especially in
the context of multiple fatalities and widespread public concern--
cannot be construed as procedural unfairness, particularly when
the report has been supported by consistent facts and data.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025
Accordingly, this Court holds that the enquiry conducted
by the State authorities was fair, impartial, and in accordance with
law.
Issue 4: Whether the petitioner is entitled to any further relief,
including enhanced compensation, as a matter of right or in
equity?
After considering the pleadings, submissions of the
parties, and the material on record, it has been brought to the
Court's attention that other similarly situated families--whose
children also died under similar circumstances in Araria district--
were provided compensation of ₹50,000/- or more from the Chief
Minister's Relief Fund. The petitioner, however, was paid only
₹20,000/-, without explanation or justification for the differential
treatment. Such disparity, in absence of any intelligible
classification or reason, is clearly arbitrary and offends the
principle of equality before law under Article 14 of the
Constitution.
Furthermore, the right to health and timely medical
treatment is an integral facet of the fundamental right to life
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the
present case, despite the children developing serious symptoms
immediately after vaccination, the available records suggest that
Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025
adequate and timely medical care was not provided at the Primary
Health Centre, Kursakanta.
This Court considers it appropriate to note that the
petitioner's grievance regarding the lack of immediate and
effective medical intervention at the Primary Health Centre--
particularly the alleged inaction and departure of the concerned
official (Respondent No.8)--is a serious issue, which does not
appear to have been thoroughly investigated or addressed in the
enquiry report. No individual accountability or action against any
official for alleged medical negligence in treatment has been
brought on record.
In the case of Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity
and others vs State of W.B. & Others reported in (1996) 4 SCC
37, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph-9 observed that:
"....Failure on the part of a government
hospital to provide timely medical treatment to
a person in need of such treatment results in
violation of his Right to Life guaranteed under
Art 21 of the Indian Constitution "
There exists a specific and serious allegation against
Respondent No. 8 regarding his absence and dereliction of duty at
a critical juncture, as clearly stated in paragraph 5 of the writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025
petition. However, the State, in its counter affidavit, has
conspicuously failed to respond to this allegation or to produce any
relevant records from the Primary Health Centre (PHC) or other
supporting documents to rebut the claim or establish the presence
and conduct of the said respondent during the emergency.
Respondent no. 8 did not even bother to give any response to the
specific allegation levelled against him for dereliction of duty.
Such omission reflects a casual and indifferent attitude
on the part of the respondents in dealing with a matter involving
the loss of a minor's life, which clearly warranted a prompt and
transparent reply. Instead, as observed in paragraph 6 of the
counter affidavit of Respondent no. 6, the respondent sought to
shift the burden onto the petitioner by insisting on the production
of documentary evidence--an expectation that is legally
untenable, since the custody and control of the relevant medical
and administrative records rest solely with the government
authorities, not the petitioner.
This issue had also been specifically flagged by this
Court in its order dated 08.05.2025 seeking a detailed reply on this
issue. Yet, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.
2 remains vague and unresponsive on this point, offering no
substantive clarification or documentary support on this crucial
Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025
aspect. Mere non- availability of a policy as such to consider the
same cannot be a reason to deny the petitioner from adequate
compensation. Once the infringement of a fundamental right is
established, the State is duty bound to compensate the same even if
it lacks policy guidelines.
In the case of Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity
and others vs State of W.B. & Others reported in (1996) 4 SCC
37, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:
"In respect of deprivation of the constitutional
rights guaranteed under Part III of the
Constitution the position is well settled that
adequate compensation can be awarded by the
Court for such violation by way of redress in
proceedings under Art.32 and 226 of the
Constitution "
This fact has been emphasized by various other
Judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court such as Rudal Shah vs
State of Bihar reported in AIR 1983 SC 1086 and Nilabati Behra
v State of Orissa reported in AIR 1993 SC 1960. In Rudul Sah v.
State of Bihar, the Hon'ble Apex Court said:
"...In these circumstances, the refusal of this
court to pass an order of compensation in
favour of the petitioner will be doing mere lip
service to his fundamental right to liberty
Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025
which the State Government has so grossly
violated."
In Sube Singh v. State of Haryana reported in AIR
2006 SC 1117, the court gave a condition to be fulfilled before
ordering compensation - "Every court should ascertain if the
violation of the right to life is patent and incontrovertible. After
this, the court may proceed to give whatever compensation it
deems fit."
In light of the concerns raised during the pendency of
this writ application and the inability of the state to provide any
material evidence to prove this fact, this Court holds that the
petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation not merely as a
matter of policy or discretion but also on grounds of constitutional
equity and fairness.
14. In view of the above findings and a comprehensive
consideration of the pleadings, this Court directs that the
respondents shall pay a sum of ₹30,000 to the petitioner as
compensation, in addition to the previously offered ₹20,000/- if
the cheque has been encashed by the petitioner in order to
maintain equity with the similarly situated aggrieved families who
are awarded with a compensation of ₹50,000 ,within eight weeks
from the date of this order. However, if the earlier issued cheque of
Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025
₹20,000/- has not been encashed by the petitioner and since then
has expired ,then the respondent shall pay full sum of ₹50,000 to
the petitioner as compensation within eight weeks of this order.
Additionally, an extra compensation of 1 Lakh is to be given by
the State to the petitioner on account of its lapse in providing the
essential medical care and treatment to the child at Primary Health
Centre, Kursakaanta, Araria, which is violative of the Art. 21 of
the Constitution. This amount shall be treated as ex-gratia
compensation for the violation of the petitioner's deceased son's
fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and shall
also be paid within eight weeks from the date of this order.
15. As regards the Medical Officer who was the incharge
of the PHC, Kursakanta at that point of time who was responsible
for the lapse and dereliction of duty resulting in denial of
immediate medical aid to the petitioner's deceased son, the State is
directed to take appropriate administrative actions against the
officer concerned, in accordance with law.
16. A copy of this judgment to be sent for taking
necessary action to the Principal Secretary, Department of Health,
Government of Bihar within 4 weeks from the date of this order
and the Principal Secretary is directed to take appropriate action as
Patna High Court CWJC No.13074 of 2015 dt.29-07-2025
per law within three months of the date of receiving of the copy of
this judgment
17. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid
terms. All pending I.A.s if any will be deemed to have been
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
Prakash Narayan
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 25.07.2025
Uploading Date 29.07.2025
Transmission Date NA
