UPSC Mains 2017 · GS IV · Q11 · 20 marks · 250 words · Case study

You are the head of the Human Resources department of an organisation. One day one of the workers died on duty. His family was demanding compensation. However, the company denied compensation because it was revealed in investigation that he was drunk at the time of the accident. The workers of the company went on to strike demanding compensation for the family of the deceased. The Chairman of the management board has asked for your recommendation.

  1. What recommendation would you provide to the management ?
  2. Discuss the merits and demerits of each of the recommendations.

हिन्दी में

आप किसी संगठन के मानव संसाधन विभाग के अध्यक्ष हैं । एक दिन कर्मचारियों में से एक का ड्यूटी करते हुए देहान्त हो गया । उसका परिवार मुआवज़े की माँग कर रहा था किन्तु कम्पनी ने इस कारण से मुआवज़ा देने से इनकार कर दिया है क्योंकि कम्पनी को जाँच द्वारा ज्ञात हुआ कि कर्मचारी दुर्घटना के समय नशे में था । कम्पनी के कर्मचारी मृतक कर्मचारी के परिवार को मुआवज़ा देने की माँग करते हुए हड़ताल पर चले गए । प्रबंधन बोर्ड के अध्यक्ष ने आपसे इस संबंध में सलाह देने को कहा ।

  1. प्रबंधन मंडल को आप क्या सलाह देंगे ?
  2. अपनी दी गई सलाहों में से प्रत्येक के गुणों और दोषों की चर्चा कीजिए ।

How a topper answered the closest question

Toppers wrote this one in a test series: “Neha, an IAS officer, is serving as the District Magistrate (DM) of a bustling metropolitan district. Among her wide-ranging responsibilities, she also oversees the functioning of the Municipal Sanitation Department, which employs hundreds of sanitation workers, drivers, and daily wage laborers responsible for keeping the city clean and waste-free. One morning, a disturbing case landed on Neha's desk. Rajiv, a municipal garbage truck driver, died following a violent street altercation while on duty. On that day, Rajiv was driving his garbage collection truck through a crowded market street. He got into a heated argument with a street vendor who had encroached upon the road, obstructing the truck's passage. Eyewitness reports and CCTV footage revealed that Rajiv, known for his short temper, started the verbal abuse, which escalated into a physical fight. Despite bystanders trying to intervene, the scuffle turned bloody. Both Rajiv and the vendor were hospitalized with serious injuries. Rajiv succumbed to a head injury later that night, while the vendor survived. A police investigation and the Municipal Sanitation Department's inquiry confirmed that Rajiv's death resulted from his own misconduct and violent behavior while on duty. A post-mortem report further revealed that Rajiv had consumed alcohol while on duty and was under the influence at the time of the altercation, which is a clear violation of service rules that strictly prohibit drinking during work hours, especially for drivers operating municipal vehicles. According to the department's standing rules, extra ex-gratia compensation and family employment are given only in cases of death caused by workplace accidents or occupational hazards, not deaths resulting from personal fights, gross misconduct, or negligence such as working under the influence of alcohol. However, Rajiv's death left behind a dependent family: his elderly parents, his wife, and two children, one in college, the other in high school. His wife and children, shattered by his sudden death, argue that Rajiv died during duty hours and the family must not be punished for his mistake. The Sanitation Workers' Union has taken up the issue aggressively, demanding the same full ex-gratia compensation that is given to other drivers who die on duty, plus a permanent government job for Rajiv's elder son. When the department refused, citing the clear rule violation, the union declared an indefinite strike, bringing garbage collection to a standstill. The strike has now entered its tenth day, and the city's streets are overflowing with waste, creating serious health and public order concerns. Neha is under pressure to resolve the crisis while balancing legal norms, humanitarian concerns, and public interest. (a) Evaluate each option with its merits and demerits available to Neha. (b) If you were in Neha's position, what decision would you take? Justify your decision with appropriate ethical reasoning and principles. (c) What steps can Neha take to prevent similar incidents and ethical conflicts in the future in the Municipal Sanitation Department?”

Sandeep BadadAIR 82 · CSE 2025 · 362 wordsTheir whole copy

Opening

The case represents complex interplay of objectivity, compassion, duty and service delivery.

Body · points and prose

(a). Options

(1) Deny compensation (Ex-gratia) as per rules.

MeritDemerit
# Uphold rule of law# Protest continues
# Organisational ethos and discipline preserved# Dependent family vulnerability rises
# Projects poor image of department
# Reduces morale of frontline worker

(2) Award compensation & a job as per demands.

MeritsDemerits
# Compassionate governance for victim family# Bad precedent
# Boost union morale# Embolden wrong conduct
# Call off strikes → resume waste collection# Organisational discipline suffers

(3) Balanced option of giving relief as a one time exceptional measure

MeritsDemerits
# Family of driver welfare# Still strain on exchequer for no wrong
# Employees happy and secure
# Organisational discipline intact
# Public services resume
# May aid higher productivity in long term

(b) My Option : justification

I would choose option 3.

Course of action

  1. Thorough investigate matter for Objectivity and transparency

  2. While persuading worker union to call of strike immediately assuring just decision in the case and also warning of penalty for continuing.

  3. Case resolution → on compassionate ground → make exception as one time affair → offer either compensation or job. to serve welfare ethics.

  4. Longterm aim → Issue clear guidelines about organisational policy on ex-gratia and procedure for mass strike.

→ Create an employee welfare fund for such exigencies in future. → Further convey various social security schemes like PM Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana. → Effective Governance

(c) Steps in future

→ Same as long term measures. → Capacity building and training. → Regular monitoring and review conduct. → Participative approach → public reporting drunken workers on duty.

Close · a summary

Such cases require balance of Objectivity and compassion to ensure governance of the people, for the people.

How toppers approach this question, and more on its topic: open the question.

Toppers’ answers to other close questions

Source: UPSC, Civil Services (Main) Examination 2017, General Studies Paper IV, Q11. The paper on upsc.gov.in. Themes and links to toppers’ answers are by UPSC Grade, not by UPSC.