High Court seeks Govt’s response in plea by migrant labour of Bihar seeking ex-gratia payment for wife’s death in Delhi due to Covid-19

The Delhi High Court has sought the Delhi government’s response in a plea by one migrant labour of Bihar seeking ex-gratia payment for his wife’s death due to Covid-19 in January 2022, in Delhi.

A bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh was hearing a plea by the migrant labour namely Mohd. Sabir Safi from Bihar, whose wife had passed away on January 13, 2022. Safi sought ex-gratia payment in view of the death of his wife due to Covid-19.

Safi’s case was that he made an application for release of the ex-gratia payment in Bihar, which was rejected on the ground that the death took place in Delhi.

Advocates Rahul Sagar Sahay and Raghav Rajmalani appearing for Safi contended that as per guidelines of Mukhya Mantri Yojna residence proof of Delhi was required as a supporting document and that the petitioner had not been granted ex-gratia payment from either of the States.

The counsel stated that interestingly, the requirement of having residence proofs of Delhi to become eligible for schemes in Delhi was not part of the original Mukhyamantri Yojana or the DDRF Scheme in Delhi but was added by way of a guideline. They also alleged that this above requirement was “arbitrary” and “ultra vires” the original schemes for ex-gratia payments.

It was also submitted that pertinently, in Delhi there are schemes to provide for ex-gratia payment to a family member of the deceased who died due to Covid 19 such as (a) Mukhyamantri Covid-19 Pariwar Aarthik Sahayata Yojana and (b) payment of ex-gratia assistance out of Delhi Disaster Response Fund (DDRF), and under the DDRF Scheme, certain guidelines were issued which provided for submitting of required documents such as residence proof of Delhi of both deceased and the applicant, certificate from Death Ascertaining Committee (CDAC), Surviving Member Certificate, NOC from others LRs, etc. Thereafter, the Delhi Government stated that the guidelines issued in the DDRF Scheme would apply to the Mukhyamantri Yojana also. 

Furthermore, the counsel contended that the requirement of the documents as provided in the said guidelines had also been challenged as being beyond the scope of the Mukhyamantri Yojana or the DDRF Scheme by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated June 30, 2021, and order dated November 29, 2021, in Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India.

Taking note of the submissions, the single-judge bench noted the hardship being faced by such persons and issued notice to the respondents. The court directed the respondents to file their responses on the issues raised and also directed them to implead the State of Bihar as a party.

Accordingly, the court listed the matter for further hearing on July 20.

CASE TITLE: MOHD. SABIR SAFI v GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI