Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court, in a recent ruling, dismissed the compensation claim of a widow, emphasizing that her deceased husband, serving only as a hand pump helper during the COVID-19, did not qualify as a Covid Warrior. 

The bench of Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice R.M. Joshi held, “In-fact, the Hand-pump Operators are authorized to operate the Hand-pumps for supplying water. The deceased was a Helper to the Hand-pump Operator. There is no material before us to indicate that he was specifically issued with an order deploying him as a part of the reduced strength of employees (different batches of employees, which were created for reducing presence of employees on duty) in the period 15.04.2021 to 29.04.2021”. 

A widow approached the high court seeking Rs. 50 lakh ex-gratia compensation from the government, asserting that her late husband, employed as a hand-pump helper, performed essential duties during the COVID-19 pandemic, thus qualifying as a Covid Warrior. His unfortunate death due to COVID-19 further supported her claim, despite its rejection by the Zilla Parishad due to a stringent interpretation.

Advocate S.N. Janakwade, representing the widow, emphasized several relevant documents, such as medical reports, a service certificate, and governmental resolutions. Additionally, office directives from the Law and Justice Department were cited.

In contrast, the Additional Government Pleader (AGP) R.S. Wani contended that the deceased served as a hand-pump madatnis (Helper) to the hand-pump operator. The AGP argued that unless an employee was exclusively assigned Covid-related duties during the pandemic, they were ineligible for the ex-gratia payment, as per the Government Resolution regarding insurance cover and ex-gratia assistance for Covid-related duty deaths.

He further proposed considering ex-gratia assistance for employees actively serving during the pandemic. A committee, comprising officials from the Zilla Parishad and other administrative bodies, confirmed no directive appointing the deceased for Covid-related duties.

The court emphasized the Government Resolution, which outlined procedures for assessing claims related to COVID-related deaths, noted that various personnel, including healthcare workers and government employees, were engaged in such tasks, leading to fatalities. To honor their contributions, the State Government established a Personal Accident Cover of Rs.50 lakhs for such employees, with all deaths during duty eligible for ex-gratia assistance.

The bench also highlighted specified criteria for eligibility, including being on duty within 14 days before hospitalization or death, verified by designated authorities, and obtaining medical certification confirming COVID-19 as the cause of death. Coverage extended to contractual and temporary staff.

Furthermore, the court noted, “The Petitioner has not pleaded that the Zilla Parishad has owned responsibility as regards the undated certificate issued by the three members’ committee. Nevertheless, the certificate creates a suspicion, since it mentions that the deceased was on duty for 14 days preceding his death on 29.04.2021. The authenticity of this certificate is extremely doubtful. The certificate which is owned-up by the Zilla Parishad dated 21.03.2023, mentions that the deceased was on leave from 15.04.2021 to 29.04.2021”.

However, the court held that the scrutiny of medical certificates revealed conflicting information about the deceased's duty status before his death. While one certificate indicated active duty, another suggested he was on leave due to Covid-19. Insufficient evidence existed to ascertain his specific duties during the pandemic, given his role as a hand-pump helper did not inherently involve COVID-related tasks, and no documented deployment order existed during the relevant period.

Case Title: Kanchan v The State of Maharashtra (2024:BHC-AUG:7748-DB)