Manual scavenging deaths: Can’t insist on heir certificate from kin in absence of disputes, HC tells Thane civic body

A division bench of Justices Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Sandeep V Marne on July 18 passed an order in a plea by Shramik Janata Sangh – a trade union, Raju Madhve – the father of Suraj who died while cleaning septic tank at a housing complex in Mumbra-Thane in 2022, and Shreyas Pande – a writer and activist.

The petitioners said that the procurement of heirship certificates causes inordinate delay in the payment of compensation in addition to unnecessary expenses.

Senior advocate Gayatri Singh, representing the petitioners, said that as per the Supreme Court judgment in the Safai Karmachari Andolan case, the authorities concerned are responsible to ensure the payment of compensation of Rs 10 lakh to the kin of deceased, and the same be complied with. The plea sought quashing the resolution of TMC, making private societies liable for compensation, and said that instead, the local state authorities should be made liable for the payment.

Senior advocate Ram Apte, representing the TMC, justified insistence by the civic body, and submitted that in absence of heirship certificates, there is “a possibility of the amount of compensation being misappropriated by persons other than legal heirs”.

The bench said, while it appreciated concerns expressed by the TMC, “it is seen that such insistence is substantially delaying the payment of compensation”.

The court referred to an affidavit in reply by the TMC, which showed that though three sewerage workers died on May 9, 2021, the family of only one of the deceased has been compensated so far — i.e. in February, 2023, after producing the legal heirship certificate — a delay of two years. In case of families of the other two deceased, the compensation has not been paid till date on the pretext of pendency of proceedings filed by them for issuance of heirship or succession certificate.

The bench also observed that the TMC’s submissions strengthened the petitioners’ contentions. “It cannot be that in every case of death of a sewage worker engaged in manual scavenging there are competing claims amongst the relatives. Therefore, the municipal corporation cannot insist on the production of heirship or succession certificates in every case, where there are no disputes amongst the relatives,” it observed.

According to the bench, “In a given case, where two sets of relatives file competing claims for compensation before the municipal corporation, it would be justified on the procurement of heirship certificate. However, to insist for procurement of such a heirship certificate in every case would completely defeat the entire objective behind the payment of compensation to the family of a deceased sewerage worker, who has met with death while being engaged in manual scavenging.”

It also said that while the TMC’s assurance that it will pay the compensation despite such incidents taking place in private buildings was sufficient at present, timely payment of the compensation has to be ensured.

Passing an interim order, the bench directed the TMC “not to insist upon heirship or succession certificate” in every case of death of workers cleaning sewers or septic tanks. The HC has kept the next hearing on August 24.