Mumbai: Ex-Gratia For Death Of COVID-19 Warriors Cannot Be Dealt With Casually, Says Bombay HC

Mumbai: The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has said that compensation for death of Covid-19 warriors was not a bounty and cases seeking such ex-gratia amount cannot be dealt with casually. The court has dismissed a petition by a woman seeking ex-gratia whose husband, a hand-pump helper, died during the pandemic.

The HC upheld the decision of the Maharashtra government denying her Rs50 lakh compensation observing that there was nothing “perverse or erroneous” in the state’s order.

Kanchan Hamshette from Nanded approached the high court after the state rejected her application seeking ex-gratia compensation of Rs 50 lakh as her husband, who she claims was deployed by the government, had died after being infected with the coronavirus.

The government, during the pandemic, had introduced a comprehensive personal accident cover of Rs50 lakh to those employees who were on active duty relating to survey, tracing, tracking, testing, prevention, and treatment and relief activities.

Hamshette’s plea claimed that her husband, who died in April 2021, was performing work that fell in the category of essential services. The deceased was working as a hand-pump helper, as per the petition. She sought the high court to quash a November 2023 communication of the government rejecting her application.

In a detailed order, the court emphasised that there can be no debate that such cases should be dealt with sensitivity, care and caution, but the same should be scrutinised thoroughly.

“On the one hand, such cases have to be scrutinised thoroughly but on the other hand, it has to be kept in mind that cases which are not qualified for payment of Rs50 lakh as ex-gratia cannot be entertained as if such amounts are a bounty,” a division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and RM Joshi said.

“If such cases are dealt with casually and compensation amounts are granted, those who were not eligible for such compensation, would be receiving Rs50 lakh from the taxpayers’ money,” the bench added. The state had contended that the petitioner’s husband was a hand-pump helper and was not employed in Covid-19 duty by any competent authority.