Ex-Gratia Payments Discretionary In Nature, Not Matter Of Right: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has recently held that ex-gratia payments are discretionary in nature and not a matter of right. “Ex-gratia payments are discretionary and not a matter of right. They are granted as a compassionate gesture in extraordinary circumstances, subject to the specific terms and conditions outlined in the governing policy,” Justice Sanjeev Narula said. The Court made...
The Delhi High Court has recently held that ex-gratia payments are discretionary in nature and not a matter of right.
“Ex-gratia payments are discretionary and not a matter of right. They are granted as a compassionate gesture in extraordinary circumstances, subject to the specific terms and conditions outlined in the governing policy,” Justice Sanjeev Narula said.
The Court made the observations while dismissing a daughter's plea seeking ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 1 Crore from the Delhi Government over death of her mother, Anganwadi worker, who succumbed to COVID-19 pandemic in April 2021.
In 2020, the Delhi Government announced its decision to award compensation of Rs. 1 crore to families of employees who died of the disease while on COVID-19 duty.
It was the daughter's case that her mother's work of distributing ration and participating in immunisation camps qualified as essential services and fell within the ambit of COVID-19-related duties as provided in the Delhi Government's Cabinet Decision.
However, the claim was rejected by the Delhi Government on the grounds that her mother's work did not meet the criteria as defined in the policy in question.
Justice Narula said that the decision-making process followed by the Group of Ministers was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable and that detailed submissions made by the daughter were considered and examined, including the nature of her mother's duties and her deployment during the pandemic.
“Anganwadi services, while critical to public welfare, can be categorized as essential services in the broader sense, but were not linked to the direct handling of COVID-19 cases, containment measures, or relief efforts specific to the pandemic such as distribution through special designated distribution centres. Furthermore, the mother of the Petitioner was not deployed for such special duties by an order of the Government,” the Court said.
It added that the Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can only ensure adherence to the policy and cannot expand the scope in a manner that overrides the intent behind the policy.
The Court also concluded that expanding the scope of the ex-gratia scheme beyond its intended parameters risks setting a precedent that could lead to “unintended misapplications.”
“The policy was drafted to recognize the extraordinary risks faced by individuals engaged in such high-risk duties. Undoubtedly, as an Anganwadi worker, Petitioner's mother provided vital services distribution of nutritional food and ration for children and new mothers, yet her services do not meet the narrowly defined criteria, for grant of ex gratia compensation under the Cabinet Decision No. 2835 of GNCTD dated 13th May, 2020,” the Court observed.
Title: SUBATA KHAN v. GNCTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1250