GS Paper IV — Q11
Rakesh was working as Joint Commissioner in Transport Department of a city. As a part of his job profile, among others, he was…
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.
What are the options available to Rakesh to meet the above situation?
Critically examine each of the options identified by Rakesh.
What are the ethical dilemmas being faced by Rakesh?
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।
उपर्युक्त स्थिति से निपटने के लिए राकेश के पास कौन-से विकल्प उपलब्ध हैं?
राकेश द्वारा विहित किए गए प्रत्येक विकल्प का समालोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए।
वे कौन-सी नैतिक दुविधाएं हैं, जिनका राकेश को सामना करना पड़ रहा है?
उपर्युक्त स्थिति को दूर करने के लिए राकेश क्या कार्यवाही करेंगे?
Model answer
Drafted with AI by UPSC Answer Check against this question's marking rubric, to the 250-word length. UPSC does not publish answers for Mains — this is one way to score well, not an official key. How we build rubrics and answers.
(a) Options available to Rakesh
- Uphold management's refusal of any extra compensation or job, since the driver started the fight.
- Accept both union demands in full to end the strike.
- Pay statutory dues plus a humanitarian ex-gratia amount, but no compassionate appointment.
- Set up a quick joint inquiry (with a union nominee) into whether the death "arose out of and in the course of employment", with interim relief to the family tied to calling off the strike.
- Defer everything until the police investigation and court case end.
(b) Critical examination
- Option 1 follows the rules and avoids rewarding violence, but prolongs the strike, hurts commuters and abandons a family that did nothing wrong.
- Option 2 ends the strike at once, but equating a death in a brawl with a death in the line of duty sets a bad precedent and weakens discipline.
- Option 3 balances prudence and compassion, but the union may reject it as token relief.
- Option 4 is procedurally fair and brings the union into the process; it takes a little time, but interim relief can end the strike.
- Option 5 is legally safe but is administrative abdication: trials take years, the family suffers and the city stays paralysed.
(c) Ethical dilemmas
- Individual culpability vs the needs of an innocent widow and two school-going daughters.
- Setting a precedent vs making a compassionate exception.
- Public convenience vs workers' right to collective bargaining.
- Rules and financial prudence vs the duty of care of a model employer.
- Fairness to other employees vs empathy for this family.
(d) Course of action
- Immediate: call a meeting of the union and management; appeal to the union on the hardship citizens face; sanction interim relief from the staff welfare fund, on condition that the strike is called off.
- Short term: a joint committee (legal officer, management, union nominee) to decide within two weeks whether the death is compensable under the Code on Social Security, 2020 (in force from 21 November 2025; it subsumes the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923). In Mackinnon Mackenzie v. Ibrahim Mahommed Issak, the Supreme Court required a causal link between the employment and the injury. Statutory compensation cannot be denied if the job exposed him to the risk, though extra ex-gratia meant for line-of-duty deaths can be withheld.
- Family support: release PF, gratuity and insurance quickly; arrange scholarships for the daughters; consider contractual or skill-based work for the widow under existing rules rather than a special compassionate appointment.
- Long term: training in conflict de-escalation and stress management for drivers on congested routes, clear rules on on-duty incidents, and a standing grievance mechanism so that disputes are settled before they become strikes.
How this answer will be evaluated
Framework: GS4 Case Study Framework (Crux, Stakeholders, Dilemmas, Options, Course of Action)
What earns full marks: Balanced analysis of legal/ethical conflicts with a nuanced, multi-horizon solution.
Evaluation rubric
Each sub-part is marked on its own, against the marks and word limit printed on the paper.
- (a) List distinct courses of action available to Rakesh.
enumerate— list the items in order → one line each → no commentary
Must cover
- Option to grant compensation as per standard rules
- Option to deny compensation citing police FIR
- Option to seek legal advice on 'duty' definition
- Option to negotiate with union for alternative relief
Loses marks
- Listing vague options like 'do the right thing'
- Ignoring the legal aspect of the FIR
Earns more
- Option to refer case to higher authority
- Option to mediate between family and management
Extra mark
- Reference to specific government service rules
- (b) Assess the pros and cons of each option identified.
critically evaluate— positives → negatives/limits → conditions/safeguards → conclusion
Must cover
- Critique of denying compensation (legal risk, public trust)
- Critique of granting compensation (precedent, financial impact)
- Analysis of the 'duty' vs 'personal quarrel' conflict
- Evaluation of impact on union relations
Loses marks
- One-sided analysis favoring only management
- Failure to link options to the specific case facts
Earns more
- Mention of 'discriminatory approach' risk
- Consideration of the driver's family's financial dependency
Extra mark
- Reference to 'duty of care' legal principle
- (c) Identify the specific ethical conflicts Rakesh faces.
highlight— name the salient points → one line of substance each → close
Must cover
- Conflict between legal duty (FIR) and social duty (family)
- Conflict between institutional rules and human compassion
- Dilemma of fairness to other employees vs this family
- Pressure from union vs management's financial constraints
Loses marks
- Generic ethical statements not tied to the case
- Ignoring the 'sole earner' aspect of the dilemma
Earns more
- Mention of 'empathy' vs 'impartiality'
- Conflict of interest regarding public service continuity
Extra mark
- Reference to utilitarian vs deontological ethics
- (d) Propose a specific course of action to resolve the deadlock.
suggest— the problem in one line → implementable measures → who acts → conclusion
Must cover
- Immediate action: Empathetic engagement with family
- Short-term: Review of 'duty' definition and rules
- Long-term: Policy review for 'on-duty' incidents
- Balanced solution: Partial compensation or ex-gratia
Loses marks
- Preaching values without actionable steps
- Ignoring the strike's impact on public transport
Earns more
- Suggestion to provide employment to family member
- Plan to end strike through dialogue
Extra mark
- Reference to 'ex-gratia' payment mechanism
What "Critically examine" is asking you to do
Test the proposition the question puts to you and return a finding on how far it holds. Examine stems carry a claim, or ask whether something has happened, and expect evidence weighed both ways before the extent is stated — often with remedial measures attached. “Critically” is not a section added at the end: name the yardstick you are judging by — the evidence, the stated objective, a constitutional principle, a rival explanation — and let a verdict close each part of the body. Where the question quotes a claim, that verdict must land on the claim itself, accepted, qualified or rejected, and not on the theme in general.
Structure that answers it
Restate the claim as the question frames it → evidence that supports it → evidence that undercuts it → the conditions under which it holds → verdict on how far it stands
Where marks are lost
Merits in one paragraph, demerits in the next, and a conclusion calling for a balanced and holistic approach. That is a survey with the judgement left out and it holds the answer in the middle band. The opposite error is reading “critically” as permission to attack — and with the odd pairings, critically describe or critically explain, the exposition still carries most of the marks, the judgement being a layer on it rather than a substitute for it.
Practice this exact question
Write your answer and it is marked point by point against the model answer above — what you covered, what you missed, what you got wrong.
Evaluate my answer →More from General Studies 2022 GS Paper IV
- Q8 Ramesh is State Civil Services Officer who got the opportunity of getting posted to the c…
- Q9 The Supreme Court has banned mining in the Aravalli Hills to stop degradation of the fore…
- Q10 You have done MBA from a reputed institution three years back but could not get campus pl…
- Q11 Rakesh was working as Joint Commissioner in Transport Department of a city. As a part of…
- Q12 You are appointed as an officer heading the section in Environment Pollution Control Boar…