सव भव तु सिखनः ु sion considered the report submi ed by the authority in the instant case. Since the charge- sheet was submi ed against the accused for commi ng the offences U/ Sec. 323/ 341/ 504/ 376/ 376(2)(n)/ 376D IPC and Sec on 3/ 4/ 16/ 17 POCSO Act along with Sec on 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act before the Hon'ble Court and further in terms of the direc on of the Commission, the compensa on of rupees one lakh was paid to the vic m of the case bearing FIR No. 133/2020 and an amount of Rs. 2,06,250/- was paid to the vic m in FIR vide proceedings dated 16 March 2020, the Commission considered the said report and directed to the SSP, Firozabad, to send the reasons for delay in registra on of FIR in the ma er, ac on taken against the guilty officials, details of arrest of the absconding accused persons and ac on taken against them, details of Mandatory Monetary Relief to vic m under SC/ST (PoA) Act, and details of security provided to the vic ms. Pursuant to the direc on of the Commission and condi onal summons issued by the Commission vide its proceedings dated 01 February 2021, the Commission received an old report dated 31 January 2020 from the Superintendent of Police, Firozabad, which had already been considered by the Commission vide its proceedings dated 16 March 2020.No. 238/2020. The ma er was closed by the Commission on 29 August 2022. 3.) Tragic Loss of Two Lives at Kondli Sewage Treatment Plant, East Delhi. (Case No: 2231/30/2/2022) The Commission encountered a distressing news report in The Times of India dated 31 March 2022. The report, tled "Two bodies fished out of sewage plant pit at Kondli", detailed a tragic incident on 30 March 2022. They lost their lives a er falling into a pit at a sewage treatment plant in Kondli while repairing a motor. Fire officials responded to an emergency call, but the vic ms couldn't be saved and were declared dead at the hospital. Upon taking cognizance of this ma er, the Commission promptly sought relevant reports from the concerned authori es. Following a comprehensive review of the submi ed reports, on 07 September 2022, the Commission took ac on. It issued a no ce under Sec on 18 of the PHRA to the Chief Execu ve Officer of the Delhi Jal Board and government officials from the relevant department. This no ce requested a response regarding why the Commission should not pursue criminal prosecu on due Chapter 7 - Thematic Areas to negligence. The primary concern was the failure to provide safety equipment, as s pulated in the Commission's Advisory against public servants, issued on the 29 April 2021. In response to this no ce, the Chief Engineer (SDW) of the Delhi Jal Board submi ed a comprehensive report. They firmly asserted that there had been no negligence on the part of the Delhi Jal Board in implemen ng either the provisions of the PEMSR Act, 2013, or the Advisory issued by the Commission. Consequently, they urged the Commission not to ini ate criminal proceedings against the Delhi Jal Board or its officials. Nevertheless, during the Commission's delibera ons on the ma er, a cri cal issue came to light. It was observed that while an Instruc onal Order had been issued, instruc ng employers to adhere to guidelines concerning the implementa on of the Prohibi on of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilita on Act, 2013, and the Rehabilita on Rules, 2013, the actual contractual details between the employer and the Delhi Jal Board were conspicuously absent. This was of utmost importance since the responsibility of providing safety gear to workers could not be solely shi ed to the hiring agency based on a contract. Consequently, the Commission requested an examina on of the standard contract used by the Delhi Jal Board for hazardous cleaning work in sewage. Furthermore, the Commission noted that the reply from the Delhi Jal Board failed to address the no ce issued to the Chief Execu ve Officer regarding negligence in providing safety gear to the deceased employees, who had been employed by a contractor. The Commission s pulated a response within four weeks. In response to these direc ves, the Chief Engineer (SDW) of the Delhi Jal Board provided clarifica on. They stated that the work undertaken was exclusively for the operaon of the 45 MGD STP Phase-IV at Kondli and did not involve any hazardous cleaning or scavenging ac vi es. The maintenance of all electrical and mechanical equipment fell within the department's purview. They acknowledged that contract condi ons could vary depending on the nature of the work. The department had provided one- me safety equipment to the contractor due to the hazardous nature of the area. The contractor bore the responsibility of judiciously using these safety gears, and departmental officials conducted regular site inspec ons. 67