Rakesh was working as Joint Commissioner in Transport Department of a city. As a part of his job profile, among others, he was entrusted with the task of overseeing the control and functioning of City Transport Department. A case of strike by the drivers’ union of City Transport Department over the issue of compensation to a driver who died on duty while driving the bus came up before him for decision in the matter.
He gathered that the driver (deceased) was plying Bus No. 528 which passed through busy and congested roads of the city. It so happened that near an intersection on the way, there was an accident involving the bus and a car driven by a middle-aged man. It was found that there was altercation between the driver and the car driver. Heated arguments between them led to fight and the driver gave him a blow. Lot of passerbys had gathered and tried to intervene but without success. Eventually, both of them were badly injured and profusely bleeding and were taken to the nearby hospital. The driver succumbed to the injuries and could not be saved. The middle-aged driver’s condition was also critical but after a day, he recovered and was discharged. Police had immediately come at the spot of accident and FIR was registered. Police investigation revealed that the quarrel in question was started by the bus driver and he had resorted to physical violence. There was exchange of blows between them.
The City Transport Department management is considering of not giving any extra compensation to the driver’s (deceased) family. The family is very aggrieved, depressed and agitated against the discriminatory and non-sympathetic approach of the City Transport Department management. The bus driver (deceased) was 52 years of age, was survived by his wife and two school-college going daughters. He was the sole earner of the family. The City Transport Department workers’ union took up this case and when found no favourable response from the management, decided to go on strike. The union’s demand was two-fold. First was full extra compensation as given to other drivers who died on duty and secondly employment to one family member. The strike has continued for 10 days and the deadlock remains.
(a) What are the options available to Rakesh to meet the above situation? (b) Critically examine each of the options identified by Rakesh. (c) What are the ethical dilemmas being faced by Rakesh? (d) What course of action would Rakesh adopt to diffuse the above situation?
Approach · directive: “what / critically examine”
What it asks · (a) List Rakesh's options; (b) examine each critically; (c) name his ethical dilemmas; (d) decide a course of action that ends the strike.
It asks 4 things — answer each
- (a) List the options available to Rakesh to meet the situation
- (b) Critically examine each of the options
- (c) Identify the ethical dilemmas Rakesh faces
- (d) Decide the course of action Rakesh should adopt to defuse the situation
Open with · The value conflict: compassion versus rules, as a driver died on duty but in a fight he started and his blameless family's plight became a strike; then the stakeholders and their stakes.
Cover
- Stakeholders: the widow and daughters, the union and drivers, management, commuters, the injured car driver and the government, each with its stake.
- (a)/(b) Merits–demerits table: concede both demands, refuse both, or a middle path that pays dues now and refers the extras to a committee.
- Legal floor: Employees' Compensation Act Section 3 (since then, in the Code on Social Security, 2020); compassionate employment is relief, not a right.
- (c) Dilemmas: compassion v. rules, deterrence v. innocent dependants, authority v. workers' rights; Rawls on justice, not charity, for the least advantaged.
- (d) Talk and restore services; pay undisputed dues and ex-gratia relief (Article 41); a committee and legal opinion settle the extras.
- Long-term fix: a written policy on on-duty deaths, road-rage training and a contributory welfare fund.
Close with · Separating what law owes from what compassion gives ends the strike fairly and leaves a policy for the next family.
Add value (verified)
- Section 3(1), Employees' Compensation Act, 1923: the employer is liable for injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment; the exemptions for drink, drugs or wilful disobedience apply only to injuries not resulting in death or permanent total disablement.The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, Section 3 — Indian Kanoon ↗“(1) If personal injury is caused to an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter”
- Proviso (b) to Section 3(1), Employees' Compensation Act, 1923: the employer escapes liability for accidents attributable to the employee's drink, drugs or wilful disobedience only where the injury does not result in death or permanent total disablement.The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, Section 3 — Indian Kanoon ↗“(b) in respect of any injury, not resulting in death or permanent total disablement caused by an accident which is directly attributable to (i) the employee having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or (ii) the wilful disobedience”
- Umesh Kumar Nagpal (1994), quoted in Canara Bank v M. Mahesh Kumar (Supreme Court, 15 May 2015): compassionate employment exists to help the family tide over a sudden crisis; death in harness alone does not entitle the family to a job.Canara Bank & Anr v M. Mahesh Kumar, Supreme Court of India, 15 May 2015 — Indian Kanoon ↗“The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood.”
- Article 41: the State shall make effective provision for public assistance in unemployment, old age, sickness, disablement and other cases of undeserved want.Constitution of India, Article 41 — Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice ↗“make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want.”
- Rawls: the least advantaged are not objects of charity or pity but those to whom reciprocity is owed as a matter of basic justice.John Rawls — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ↗““The least advantaged are not, if all goes well, the unfortunate and unlucky—objects of our charity and compassion, much less our pity—but those to whom reciprocity is owed as a matter of basic justice””
- The four Labour Codes, including the Code on Social Security, 2020, were made effective from 21 November 2025, rationalising 29 existing labour laws (PIB).PIB, Ministry of Labour and Employment: Government makes the four Labour Codes effective ↗“the four Labour Codes - the Code on Wages, 2019, the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, the Code on Social Security, 2020 and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 are being made effective from 21st November 2025 , rationalising 29 existing labour laws”
- The Code on Social Security, 2020 incorporates nine earlier Acts, among them the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 and the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (PIB).PIB backgrounder: India's Labour Reforms: Simplification, Security, and Sustainable Growth ↗“The Code on Social Security incorporates existing nine Social Security Acts viz; The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923; The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948; The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952; The Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959; The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2022, GS Paper IV — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 1 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 373words · Minimalist IAS
Compassion versus rules: a driver died on duty but in a fight he started, and his blameless family's plight has become a ten-day strike.
Stakeholders: the widow and daughters (survival, education); the union and drivers (precedent); management (rules, finances); commuters (service); the injured car driver (justice); the government (fairness, public money).
(a) Options available and (b) their critical examination
| Option | Merits | Demerits |
|---|---|---|
| Concede both demands | Ends strike; humane | Rewards violence; unfair precedent |
| Refuse both | Consistent with police findings | Punishes blameless family; strike drags on |
| Middle path | Separates dues from disputed extras | May not fully satisfy the union |
- Middle path in detail: release admissible dues (provident fund, gratuity, insurance, family pension), add ex-gratia relief, consider compassionate appointment under the rules, and refer the extra compensation to a committee.
- Legal floor: under Section 3 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (since then, in the Code on Social Security, 2020), injury by accident "arising out of and in the course of" employment is compensable, and its fault exemptions do not cover death; a flat refusal may not stand.
- On the job demand: the Supreme Court holds that compassionate employment exists "to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis"; death in harness alone confers no right.
(c) Ethical dilemmas Rakesh faces
- Compassion v. rules: the family's need against fairness to other drivers' families; also deterrence v. innocent dependants, and authority v. workers' rights.
- Justice, not charity: for Rawls, the least advantaged are those "to whom reciprocity is owed as a matter of basic justice".
(d) Course of action to defuse the situation
- At once: meet the union, acknowledge the family's grief, and secure resumption of services against a time-bound, transparent decision.
- Pay what is due now: undisputed dues and ex-gratia relief; examine compassionate appointment for the widow or an adult daughter on need. Article 41 asks the State to assist in "undeserved want".
- Then: a committee with union representation, guided by a legal opinion on the Section 3 claim, decides the extra compensation; conciliation if deadlock persists.
- Long-term fix: a written policy on on-duty deaths, including fault cases; road-rage training; and a contributory welfare fund.
Separating what law owes from what compassion gives ends the strike fairly and leaves a policy for the next family.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 1 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
