Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 293 (MP)

Lata Singh Sisodiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2023-02-22

PRANAY VERMA

body2023
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner who is wife of the deceased employee Sarvagya Singh Sisodiya under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 6.4.2022 passed by Deputy Relief Commissioner, Bhopal whereby her claim under the Mukhyamantri Covid-19 Yodha Kalyan Yojna (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme') for compensation on account of death of her husband while performing Covid-19 duties has been rejected. 2. In brief facts of the case are that petitioner's husband was working onthe post of Assistant Engineer in Gramin Vikas Yantrika Sewa at Division Agar Malwa. Due to spread of Covid-19 Pandamic he was appointed and posted as observer by order dated 17.4.2021. He was entrusted the duty of collection of information as detailed therein and was also to carry out surprise inspection of containment area. While performing the duties entrusted upon him petitioner's husband became Covid-19 positive and eventually expired on 15.5.2021. His two sons also got Covid-19 positive and expired on 8.5.2021 and 6.6.2021 respectively. 3. Since the State Government had floated the aforesaid Scheme on17.4.2020, the petitioner being wife of the deceased applied for award of compensation under the Scheme which provides for grant of Rs. 50 lacs to thek in of an employee who has died on account of Covid-19 and also the employee who has died in an accident while performing Covid-19 duties. The claim of petitioner was rejected by respondent No.3 by order dated 13.12.2021on the ground that her husband does not fall under the category enumerated in Clause 3.1 of the Scheme. Being aggrieved by the said order son of petitioner Kunal Singh Sisodiya submitted a representation dated 21.12.2021 before respondent No. 2 for re-consideration of claim of the petitioner which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 6.4.2022 for the reason that petitioner's husband was appointed as observer to establish correspondence and to gather information regarding barricading in rural area hence does not fulfill the eligibility criteria under Clause 3.1 of the Scheme. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that claim of the petitioner squarely falls within Clause 3.1 of the Scheme as her husband had not been given merely the duty of collecting the information as regards establishment of containment area and for making the same available along with photographs and for establishing co-ordination between the Assistant Engineer and Deputy Engineer of the containment area. He had also been specifically given the duty of carrying out surprise inspection of containment area due towhich he was required to visit the area. He had been in the actual field and was not merely sitting in his office establishing co-ordination. Apparently, he contacted Covid-19 disease on account of his duties. It is hence submitted that the impugned order be quashed and the respondents be directed to extend the benefit of the Scheme to the petitioner. 5. Reply has been filed by the respondents traversing the averments made in the petition and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out since the present case does not confirm to the conditions for grant as provided under Clause 3.1 of the Scheme hence petitioner's claim has rightly been rejected by the respondents. It is further submitted that petitioner's husband was only required to sit in the office and to collect the information from various sources as was directed therein and to forward the same alongwith photographs to higher authorities. He was not physically required to go out for performance of his duty hence it cannot be said that he contacted Covid-19 only as a result of the duties entrusted to him. It is hence submitted that the petition be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. Clause 3.1 of the Scheme reads as under :-- 3-1 ,sls 'kkldh; dehZ] tks dksfoM dh jksdFkke gsrq izR;{k :i ls viuh lsok,a ns jgs gSa vFkkZr dksfoM bykt gsrq ukfer vLirky] Covid care centre, Covid Testing Lab. Quarantine centre esa ;k dksfoM&19 dh jksdFkke gsrq ?kj&?kj losZ{k.k] uewuk laxzg.k] tkap] dUVsuesaV ,fj;k esa i;Zos{k.k] lkQ&lQkbZ vkfn fofHkUu dk;ksZa esa rSukr gS ftlls mudk lh/kk laidZ dksfoM ejht ls gksus dh laHkkouk gS ik= gksaxsA iz/kkuea=h xjhc dY;k.k iSdst ds vUrxZr ykxw chek ;kstuk ds vUrxZr lfEefyr 'kkldh; dehZ ik= ugha gksaxsA 8. As per the aforesaid Clause the Scheme is applicable in respect of Government employees who were giving their services in the manner as detailed therein including inspection, cleanliness etc. in the containment area as a result of which they could have directly come in contact with Covid patients and contacted Covid-19. The Clause includes those employees who were performing any work in the containment area related to containment and stoppage of Covid -19 disease. in the containment area as a result of which they could have directly come in contact with Covid patients and contacted Covid-19. The Clause includes those employees who were performing any work in the containment area related to containment and stoppage of Covid -19 disease. The nature of work being performed by suchan employee was not confined only to those specifically mentioned in the Clause. The mentioning of inspection, cleanliness etc. is only illustrative innature and cannot be termed inclusive. The true construction of the Clause would be that those Government employees would be covered there under who were in any manner doing any work or were rendering services in the containment area for containment of Covid-19 and could have contacted Covid-19 resulting in loss of their life. 9. The work assigned to petitioner's husband has to be appreciated inview of Clause-3.1 of the Scheme to ascertain as to whether he would be covered there under. For ready reference the order of petitioner's husband reads as under :-- Øekad@xzk-;ka-ls-@2021 vkxj ekyok fnukad 17-4-2021 vkns'k izfr] Jh loZK flag fllksfn;k lgk- ;a=h] xzk-;ka-ls- laHkkx vkxj ekyokà ¼e-iz-½ fo"k; %& dysDVj egksn; ftyk vkxj ekyok ds i= Ø-79@.w.@2021fn- 9-4-2021 mijksDr fo"k;karxZr vkidks vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS] fd laiw.kZ vkxj ekyok ftys ds xzkeh.k {ks= esa lacaf/kr mi;a=h] iVokjh] ljiap] lfpo] th-vkj-,l- ls laidZ dj xzkeh.k {ks= esa csfjxsfMax ckal] cYyh ,oa jLlh ds }kjk dUVsUkesaV {ks= cuk, tkus dh tkudkjh ,d= djus gsrq vkidks fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gS] bldh tkudkjh vki lHkh tuinksa ls ysxsa ,oa izfrfnu lqcg 10 ,oa 'kke 5 cts dk;Zikyu ;a=h] xzk-;ka-ls- laHkkx vkxj ekyok dks dUVsuesaV tksu dk QksVks lfgr miyC/k djkos rFkk ch-,e-vks- dk;kZy; ls fdV ysdj ihfM+r fd ifjokj dks miyC/k djkus gsrq lacfèkr {ks= esa lgk;d ;a=h ,oa mi;a=h LFkkfir djsaA ;g vkns'k rRdky ykxw gksrk gSA mijksDr dUVsUesaV {ks= dk vkdkfLed fufj{k.k Hkh fd;k tk;sxkA mijksDr dk;Z esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dh ykijokgh {kE; ugha gksxhA dk;Zikyu ;a=h xzk- ;ka- ls- laHkkx vkxj ekyok 10. A perusal of the aforesaid order clearly reveals that petitioner's husband was not only entrusted the work of collecting the data and other material as detailed and transmitting the same to the higher authorities and establishing co-ordination between Assistant Engineer and Sub-Engineer but was also specifically entrusted the work of carrying out surprise inspection in the containment area. A perusal of the aforesaid order clearly reveals that petitioner's husband was not only entrusted the work of collecting the data and other material as detailed and transmitting the same to the higher authorities and establishing co-ordination between Assistant Engineer and Sub-Engineer but was also specifically entrusted the work of carrying out surprise inspection in the containment area. The work assigned to him did not require him only to sitin his office in a room and collect and forward data but also required him to go into the actual containment area for carrying out surprise inspection. He was thus specifically deployed in the field and it has to be necessarily presumed tha the came in contact with Covid-19 patients and contacted Covid-19. 11. In any case Clause 3.1 of the Scheme stipulates that due to deployment of Government employee in containment area there must be apossibility of his coming into contact with Covid-19 patients but does not mandate that he must be actually proved to have come in such contact. In view of nature of work assigned to petitioner's husband it has to be logically inferred that he contacted Covid-19 due to duties assigned to him in the containment area and expired due to the same. 12. In such facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that denial of claim of the petitioner whose husband has died while performing Covid-19 duties is unjust and unfair and calls for interference. 13. Resultantly, the petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 6.4.2022 is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to pay the (PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE amount of compensation to the petitioner as provided in Mukhyamantri Covid-19 Yodha Kalyan Yojna within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.