General Studies 2022 GS Paper IV 20 marks 250 words Compulsory Critically examine

Q11

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?

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

राकेश एक शहर के परिवहन विभाग में संयुक्त आयुक्त के पद पर कार्यरत थे। उनकी नौकरी प्रोफाइल के एक हिस्से के रूप में उन्हें नगर परिवहन विभाग के नियंत्रण और कामकाज की देखरेख का काम सौंपा गया था। नगर परिवहन विभाग के चालक संघ द्वारा, बस चलाते समय ड्यूटी पर मारे गए एक चालक को मुआवजे के मुद्दे पर हड़ताल का मामला उनके सामने निर्णय के लिए आया था। उसने देखा कि मृत चालक बस संख्या 528 चला रहा था, जो शहर की व्यस्त और भीड़-भाड़ वाली सड़कों पर गुजरती थी। हुआ यूं कि रास्ते में एक चौराहे के पास एक अधेड़ उम्र के व्यक्ति द्वारा चलाई जा रही कार और बस की टक्कर में एक हादसा हो गया। पता चला कि बस और कार चालक के बीच कहा-सुनी हुई थी। दोनों के बीच तीखी नोकझोंक हुई और चालक ने उसे धक्का मार दिया। बहुत-से राहगीर इकट्ठे हो गए और उन्होंने हस्तक्षेप करने की कोशिश की लेकिन सफलता नहीं मिली। आखिरकार वे दोनों बुरी तरह घायल हो गए और बहुत खून बह रहा था तथा उन्हें पास के अस्पताल ले जाया गया। हादसे में चालक ने दम तोड़ दिया और उसे बचाया नहीं जा सका। अधेड़ उम्र के चालक की भी हालत नाजुक थी लेकिन एक दिन के बाद वह संभल गया और उसे छुट्टी दे दी गई। घटना की सूचना मिलते ही पुलिस मौके पर पहुंच गई और प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट दर्ज कर ली गई। पुलिस जांच में सामने आया कि विवाद की शुरुआत बस चालक ने की थी और उसने शारीरिक हिंसा की थी। उनके बीच मारपीट हुई थी। नगर परिवहन विभाग प्रबंधन मृत चालक के परिवार को कोई अतिरिक्त मुआवजा नहीं देने पर विचार कर रहा है। नगर परिवहन विभाग प्रबंधन के भेदभाव और गैर-सहानुभूतिपूर्ण रवैये से परिवार बहुत व्यथित, उदास और आंदोलित है। मृत बस चालक की उम्र 52 वर्ष थी, उसके परिवार में पत्नी और स्कूल-कॉलेज जाने वाली द बेटियां हैं। वह परिवार का इकलौता कमाने वाला था। नगर परिवहन विभाग वर्कर्स यूनियन ने इस मामले को उठाया और जब प्रबंधन से कोई अनुकूल प्रतिक्रिया नहीं मिली, तो उसने हड़ताल पर जाने का फैसला किया। यूनियन की मांग दोहरी थी। पहली, ड्यूटी के दौरान मरने वाले अन्य चालकों को दिया जाने वाला पूरा अतिरिक्त मुआवजा और दूसरी, परिवार के एक सदस्य को रोजगार दिया जाए। 10 दिनों से हड़ताल जारी है और गतिरोध बना हुआ है। (a) उपर्युक्त स्थिति से निपटने के लिए राकेश के पास कौन-से विकल्प उपलब्ध हैं? (b) राकेश द्वारा विहित किए गए प्रत्येक विकल्प का समालोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए। (c) वे कौन-सी नैतिक दुविधाएं हैं, जिनका राकेश को सामना करना पड़ रहा है? (d) उपर्युक्त स्थिति को दूर करने के लिए राकेश क्या कार्यवाही करेंगे?

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 General Studies questions

Directive word: Critically examine

This question asks you to critically examine. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'critically examine' in part (b) requires balanced evaluation with pros/cons, while parts (a), (c), and (d) demand enumeration, identification, and prescriptive action respectively. Allocate approximately 25% words to each sub-part: (a) list 4-5 options with brief rationale; (b) critically examine each option using ethical frameworks; (c) identify 3-4 specific dilemmas with stakeholder tensions; (d) propose a concrete, phased action plan with justification. Structure as integrated response with clear sub-headings for each part, ensuring the 250-word limit is distributed proportionally across all four components.

Key points expected

  • For (a): Options include—(i) uphold management stand denying compensation, (ii) grant full compensation with employment, (iii) partial compensation without employment, (iv) refer to arbitration/committee, (v) negotiate settlement with modified terms, (vi) await judicial/police outcome
  • For (b): Critical examination using ethical lenses—utilitarian (public welfare vs individual justice), deontological (duty to law vs compassion), virtue ethics (prudence vs courage), with analysis of consequences for each option
  • For (c): Ethical dilemmas—(i) legal guilt vs moral claim (death during duty hours despite provocation), (ii) precedent setting vs compassionate exception, (iii) public interest (commuters) vs labour rights, (iv) institutional integrity vs humanitarian concern
  • For (d): Recommended course—immediate interim relief, fact-finding committee, conditional compensation, employment assistance, preventive SOPs; justified through Rawlsian justice (veil of ignorance) and Gandhi's trusteeship
  • Integration of relevant legal precedents: Supreme Court rulings on 'arising out of employment' (ESI Act, Workmen's Compensation Act), and ethical theories: John Rawls, Amartya Sen's capability approach

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%4Demonstrates precise grasp of four distinct directives: 'what' for (a) requires comprehensive enumeration; 'critically examine' for (b) demands balanced pros/cons with ethical reasoning; 'what' for (c) needs dilemma identification with stakeholder tensions; 'what course' for (d) requires prescriptive actionable steps with justification—no conflation of directivesAddresses all four parts but treats 'critically examine' as mere description or 'what' as list without elaboration; some blurring between enumeration and evaluation across sub-partsMisinterprets directives—treats entire question as single 'suggest' or 'comment'; misses critical examination requirement entirely; conflates options with course of action; fails to distinguish dilemma identification from solution
Content depth & accuracy20%4For (a): 5-6 distinct, feasible options covering spectrum from hardline to conciliatory; for (b): each option examined through 2+ ethical frameworks with consequence analysis; for (c): 4+ dilemmas with clear value conflicts; for (d): phased, implementable action plan with legal and ethical grounding—factually accurate on labour laws and administrative procedures3-4 options with superficial examination; 2-3 dilemmas stated without tension articulation; action plan generic or legally questionable; some factual errors in citing compensation laws or administrative hierarchyFewer than 3 options; no critical examination—only description; dilemmas confused with options or challenges; action plan unrealistic or violates legal/administrative norms; significant factual errors on workmen's compensation or strike legality
Structure & flow20%4Clear four-part structure with explicit sub-headings (a)-(d); seamless logical progression from option generation → critical evaluation → dilemma articulation → resolution; integrated narrative despite discrete parts; word allocation approximately 60-65 words per part; effective signpostingSub-headings present but uneven development—some parts over/under-written; logical flow within parts but weak transitions between (b) and (c), or (c) and (d); word imbalance with one part dominatingNo sub-headings or clear part demarcation; jumbled response mixing options with dilemmas and action; severe word imbalance—one part receives 150+ words leaving others skeletal; illogical sequencing
Examples / case-law / data20%4Cites specific legal frameworks: Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 (Section 3: 'arising out of and in course of employment'), ESI Act, Supreme Court precedents on 'notional extension of employment' (S. Sundarambal v. Govt. of Goa); ethical theorists: Rawls (difference principle), Sen (capability approach), Gandhi (trusteeship); comparable administrative precedents from state transport disputesGeneric reference to 'labour laws' or 'Supreme Court' without specificity; mentions 'justice' or 'equity' without theoretical anchoring; no concrete case laws or precedents; ethical frameworks named but not appliedNo legal or ethical references; relies on personal opinion or generic administrative platitudes; misattributes theories or cites irrelevant laws (e.g., RTI, Consumer Protection); no awareness of 'arising out of employment' jurisprudence
Conclusion & analytical edge20%4Part (d) demonstrates sophisticated balancing: interim relief acknowledging humanitarian crisis without prejudicing legal outcome; institutional learning through SOP amendment; reflects awareness that administrative ethics requires both procedural integrity and compassionate responsiveness; anticipates implementation challenges and mitigationConclusive action in (d) but either too legalistic (ignoring humanitarian aspect) or too concessionary (ignoring institutional precedent); no institutional learning or preventive dimension; generic 'win-win' without recognition of trade-offsNo clear course of action in (d) or action contradicts earlier analysis; purely partisan stance (management or union) without justification; no recognition of complexity; ends with vague platitude or unresolved dilemma

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →

More from General Studies 2022 GS Paper IV