"Death Date Immaterial Under UP Govt's Ex-Gratia Payment Policy If COVID Was Detected Within 30Days Of Local Polls Duty": Allahabad HC

The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Vikram D. Chauhan also held that if a person, who was admitted to the hospital as a COVID patient, died due to heart failure or any other reason, even then, such death will be considered a COVID Death and the government shall be liable to provide an ex-gratia amount to the relatives of the deceased.

The case in brief

The Uttar Pradesh Government came up with a compensation scheme wherein an ex-gratis amount of 30 Lacs was to be provided to the dependents of the people who died due to COVID while being on election duty during UP Panchayat Polls last year.

Under this scheme, the State Government decided to cover such COVID-19 deaths which occur within 30 days of the election duty.

It was further provided that the test reports Antigen/RT PCR positive, blood report, or CT scan would be sufficient proof to prove that the death occurred on account of COVID-19.

Further, it was also provided that an asymptomatic case meeting with the death on account of COVID-19 within 30 days of election duty would also be covered under the scheme.

Now, certain dependents of the individuals moved their writ plea before the Court claiming that their kins who were assigned election duty in UP Panchayat Elections last year, died after contracting COVID-19, however, they were denied the benefit of the State Government's scheme to provide compensation for such deaths.

The State Government's stand was that any death that occurs beyond a period of 30 days from the date of election duty is not relatable to the election duty, hence the claims related to such death would be liable to be rejected as was the case with the petitioners.

Court's observations

Perusing the scheme of the State Government, the Court noted that it was clear that any case detected beyond the period of 30 days from election duty as covid positive was certainly a category not covered under the scheme.

However, the Court observed that the death of asymptomatic cases within 30 days of election duty as per the mandate of government order was covered under the scheme provided that the death certificate on account of COVID-19 is produced by the claimants.

In view of this, the Court opined that the two situations that deserved to be treated at par are; firstly, where the death occurred due to covid-19 within a period of 30 days of participation in election duty in an asymptomatic case and;

secondly, where the infection of COVID-19 was detected within 30 days of election duty but the death occurred thereafter during treatment or otherwise.

In other words, the Court was of the opinion that there was no such difference between a death that occurred due to COVID (being an asymptomatic case) within 30 days and a death that occurred after 30 days, however, a COVID case was detected within the 30 days of the election duty.

To justify its stand, the Court further opined thus

"The bar of 30 days period in the cases where the infection was detected within 30 days of election duty but death occurred beyond the same is not attributable to any negligence on the part of victim that would defeat the claim rather it is owing to the lack of extraordinary care or treatment of which the duty would lay on the State. Therefore, all the detected cases within 30 days of election duty cannot be segregated from those where the infection despite remaining undetected resulted into the death of a victim due to COVID-19 within the period prescribed i.e. 30 days. Any other principle derived by the State on the basis of scientific understanding is bound to defeat the very object of the Government Order and the purpose will frustrate."

The Court also observed that the State ought not to be driven by the scientific understanding of the situation alone but what is relevant is the general perception of people which settles for acceptance.

"If the judiciary cannot form an opinion contrary to law, it equally applies on the executive not to loose sight of the purpose for which laws are made. Scientific reasons are not always sacrosanct (16) but what remains is the purpose and objects of legislation," the Court said as it opined that it said that it was not necessary for the state government to accept non-verified scientific claims that a COVID-19 patient from the date of disease onset had mortality expectancy within 28 days.

Consequently, the Court observed that the state's policy must be read beneficially for those cases too which were detected within 30 days and in that event, the date of death would become immaterial once it is on account of COVID19.

"…(we) expect the State to implement the impugned clause of Government Order dated 1st June, 2021 without discriminating between the deaths of asymptomatic and symptomatic cases on the yardstick of 30 days from the date of election duty. It must be read beneficially for those cases too which were detected within 30 days and in that event, the date of death would become immaterial once it is on account of COVID19."

Now, regarding the claims of the petitioners, the Court said that the real test as to whether one person died due to COVID or not would be governed by the rule that once the admission of deceased persons was on account of Covid-19, the resulting cause being heart failure or dysfunction of any other organ leading to death is immaterial and would nevertheless be treated as Covid-19 death.

As a result, barring one writ petition, all the other petitions were allowed and the State of UP was directed to release the ex-gratia payment to the dependents entitled thereto within a period of one month.

Each of the petitioners, whose claims are allowed shall be entitled to a cost of Rs. 25000/- in each case, the Court further ruled.

Case citation: Kusum Lata Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 28249 of 2021]