'Attempt To Shirk Responsibilities': MP High Court Slams State For Denying Compensation To Late Policeman's Wife Under CM Covid-19 Scheme

While setting aside the impugned order, the Court directed the authorities to pay compensation to the petitioner as per Mukhya Mantri COVID-19 Yoddha Kalyan Yojna (CM COVID-19 Warrior Welfare Scheme). 

Justice Pranay Verma in his order said:

 “During COVID-19 pandemic when the entire country were shut down and people were afraid to even step out of their houses, Government employees such as husband of the petitioner had responded to the call of duty and had complied with the orders of their superior authorities and had risked their life for saving the citizens. A noble scheme was thereafter floated by the State Government for compensating the families of employees who had expired while on duty but while implementing the scheme and providing actual benefits thereof in monetary terms to the family members of the deceased employee the respondents are resorting to frivolous grounds so as to avoid making payment. It is expected from the State authorities to have a big heart and to consider the plight of the family members of their own deceased employees who have lost their life while performing duty during COVID-19 pandemic and to ensure that the benefits to which they have been declared entitled to are extended to them.”

The petitioner, the widow of deceased policeman had challenged respondent No. 3/ Collector's order whereby her claim under the Mukhya Mantri COVID-19 Yoddha Kalyan Yojna  for grant of compensation on account of her husband's death while performing Covid-19 duties was rejected.

The petitioner's husband was working on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector in Police Department. During COVID-19 pandemic, he was on duty at Amaltas Hospital, Banger. During the said period, he got infected with Corona virus and expired in May 2021. The petitioner being widow of the deceased employee, applied for award of compensation under the aforesaid scheme which provides for grant of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the kin of an employee who died on account of COVID-19 or an employee who died in an accident while performing COVID-19 duties. However, petitioner's claim was rejected by respondent No. 3 on the ground that her husband did not fall under the category enumerated in Clause 3.1 of the scheme.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the claim of the petitioner falls within Clause 3.1 and 3.3 of the scheme since her husband was deputed in the drive to prevent citizens from being infected with corona virus but he himself got infected and expired. It was submitted that petitioner's husband died on account of COVID-19 while in service and during prevention drive, hence, the petitioner was entitled for the relief as claimed.

On the contrary, the counsel for the respondents contended that since the case did not conform to the conditions for grant as provided under Clause 3.1 of the scheme, hence, petitioner's claim had been rightly rejected by Respondent No.3.

It was further contended that as per Clause 3.3 of the scheme only those employees of mentioned departments who were deputed by authorized/competent authority of the State for giving services for COVID-19 pandemic would be covered. However, no such order of authorized/competent authority was passed in respect of husband of the petitioner. Thus, in absence of a mandatory deputation, the petitioner was not entitled to get the benefit.

On perusal of record, the Court referred to a document filed by the petitioner which was not taken into account by the respondents in their reply. The said document was a communication by the Station Incharge to the Superintendent of Police in respect of COVID-19 report of husband of the petitioner. The document specified the details of the duties assigned to the husband of the petitioner and stated that he fell ill during his deputation after which he was taken to the hospital where he expired.

From the aforesaid letter, the Court noted that the petitioner's husband was deputed by authorized/competent authority of the State Government for giving his services for COVID-19 pandemic.

“The order emphatically demonstrates that not only once but continuously from 14.04.2021 upto his death husband of the petitioner was deployed/deputed for maintaining law and order situation on account of COVID-19 pandemic.”, the Court noted.

Thus, the Court opined that it was incorrect on part of the respondents to contend that there was no order deputing husband of the petitioner on COVID-19 duties.

“It cannot be comprehended as to on what basis have the respondents contended that there was no order deputing husband of the petitioner on COVID-19 duty. In saying so they have acted contrary to their own record and it appears that it is an attempt on their part to somehow wriggle out of their liability for making payment to the petitioner under the scheme. The said attitude of the respondents in attempting to shirk out of their responsibilities is most unfortunate,” the Court said.

Thus, the Court held that the husband of the petitioner would certainly fall within the meaning of employees as per Clause 3.1 and 3.3 of the scheme and petitioner would be entitled for the benefits under the scheme.

The Collector's order was set aside and the high court directed the respondents to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioner as provided in Mukhya Mantri COVID-19 Yoddha Kalyan Yojna within a period of 45 days.

Case Title: Meena Bhabhar Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Yash Pal Rathore

Counsel for State: Advocate Anirudh Malpani