NHRC, India 2. iii. The Commission observed that the girls were sexually exploited for a long time, but State authorities were not aware of the same, which shows the negligence of officers, who did not keep appropriate vigil over the shelter home, for which the State was vicariously liable. Hence, a Show Cause Notice was issued on 19.02.2021, to the concerned State through its Chief Secretary, as to why an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to each victim as compensation wasnot recommended to be paid. iv. However, the Commission did not receive any response from the concerned authority, which led to the assumption that the State had nothing to urge in the matter, and therefore, the Commission confirmed its monetary recommendationvide proceedings dated 11.06.2021. v. Subsequently, it was informed to the State authorities, vide communication dated 01.10.2021, that monetary relief of rupeesthree lakh to nine lakh were paid to the victim girls and submitted proof of payment. vi. In view of such facts, the case was closed on 16.12.2021. Woman sexually harassed at her workplace in Indian Statistical Institute, District Giridih, Jharkhand. (Case No.: 1294/34/8/2018-WC) i. The Commission received a complaint on 11.09.2018 regarding the alleged harassment of the complainant, who was working as Assistant Cook (contractual) since 2015 in the guest house and canteen of Indian Statistical Institute, Giridih, Jharkhand. On 20.03.2018, the CEO was holding ameeting of the officers, and one Shri Provir Chatraj had come to the guest house, who tried to lure her by submitting that he would increase her salary and then made an attempt to rape her. She had reported this matter to the head of the Department, but no action was taken by them. ii. In response to the Commission’s directions, requisite reports were received from the State authorities on 30.9.2020. It was revealed that an FIR was registered against the prime accused and several others, wherein the prime accused had surrendered before the court and got bail. It was also mentioned that the case was under investigation. The Commission was also in receipt of a communication from the complainant, wherein the complainant stated that since she had filed the case against officials of the Institute, she had been harassed by officials of her department and that they would dismiss her from service. It was also alleged that due to the vindictive action following her police complaint, the services of the contract staff were given to an external agency that would run the canteen. Thus, she was asking the Commission to restore her contractual services as it was before. On the analysis of facts and circumstances, the Commission mentioned that it was not inclined to interfere with the Institute’s policy on contracting out cafeteria services to an outside agency, and since this was a service matter, the complainant may proceed to an appropriate forum to redress its grievance. ANNUAL REPORT 104 2021-22