Death Caused While Performing Active Duty In Drive Against COVID: M.P HC Imposes Cost For Illegal Denial Of Corona Scheme To Legal Heirs

Further, finding that the petitioners have been victimized by not granting their lawful claim for more than three years, the High Court held that denial of such benefit to them smacks foul play and a result of malafide action of the Respondents.

The Division Bench of Justice Raj Mohan Singh and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh observed that “Arun Pateriya died on 22.05.2021. After his death, his son was given certificate of Covid - 19 Yodha on behalf of the deceased Arun Pateriya, endorsing that he died while performing Covid duty and was honored posthumously by way of mark of identification”. (Para 14)

The Bench observed so while emphasizing that the competent authorities have isolated the case of the deceased with no reasons except to harp upon para No.3.1 of Mukhyamantri COVID -19 Yoddha Kalyan Yojna, which is apparently not applicable to his case.

This isolation approach was followed, when there is no ground available with the Respondents to create any artificial & meaningless classification viz-a-viz the death of Arun Pateriya (deceased CMO) on one hand and deaths of Tahsildar and Deputy Collector on other hand, added the Bench.

Facts of the case:

The petitioners, legal heirs of the deceased employee namely Arun Pateriya who died in harness while posted as Chief Municipal Officer, during second wave of COVID – 19, were denied the benefit of Mukhyamantri COVID -19 Yoddha Kalyan Yojna. The relief was denied on the premise that the government employees who were involved in actual service for curtailing Covid were only eligible for that said scheme and government employees who were eligible under the Prime Minister Garib Kalyan Package would not be entitled under the said scheme.

The petitioners claimed that even though the Committee constituted under the Mukhyamantri COVID -19 Yoddha Kalyan Yojna under the Chairmanship of the Collector had found the case of petitioners to be genuine, and it was confirmed that the deceased had died due to infection of Covid - 19 virus while on duty, the Deputy Relief Commissioner denied the benefit of compensation of Rs.50 lacs

Observations of High Court:

The Bench found that despite the death of deceased while on duty, having been infected by Covid -19 for which he was specifically assigned and deputed on job, the claim of the petitioners being heirs of the deceased has been declined solely on the basis of para 3.1 of Mukhyamantri COVID -19 Yoddha Kalyan Yojna, as per which government employees who were eligible under the Prime Minister Garib Kalyan Package would not be entitled under this scheme.

The Bench however found from the perusal of  the said para 3.1 of the 'Yojna' that it covers the case of the deceased being Chief Municipal Officer, deputed to serve the containment area for the purposes of keeping cleanliness and also indulged in prevention drive thereby running a very high risk of having contact with covid patient.

In fact the Bench opined that the deceased had died on account of covid, while in service and on prevention drive, and therefore, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the flimsy grounds.

The Bench also referred to the order dated 07th April, 2021 issued by the Office of Collector and District Magistrate, whereby the deceased was also deputed for establishing containment zone in accordance with the Covid – 19 guidelines.

Finding that the Petitioners (widow and legal heir of the deceased) were made to run pillar to post for claiming their lawful entitlement, despite positive recommendations by the Collector, the High Court allowed the petition with a cost of Rs.1 lac to be paid to the petitioner No.1 (wife of deceased) on account of her unnecessary harassment.

Counsel for Petitioner: Akash Chowdhary

Counsel for Respondent: G.P Singh

Case Title: Rajlaxmi Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Case Number: W.P No. 27631 of 2022

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 121

Click here to read/ download the Order