Back
No Proof, No Payout: Allahabad HC Sets Bar High for COVID Compensation Claims
In a ruling that underscores the need for concrete evidence in welfare schemes, the dismissed a seeking for the death of an assistant teacher's wife allegedly from COVID-19 contracted during election duty. The bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad upheld the 's rejection order dated , emphasizing that claimants must furnish test reports or a COVID death certificate ( Ajay Kumar v. and 3 Others , WRIC No. 41066 of 2023).
From Polling Booth to Hospital Bed: The Tragic Timeline
Petitioner Ajay Kumar's wife, an assistant teacher at a basic school, was assigned election duty on . During this period, amid the raging second wave of COVID-19 in Uttar Pradesh, she reportedly fell ill. Her condition deteriorated, leading to hospital admission on , where she passed away the same day. Kumar claimed she contracted the virus en route to duty and sought under a state government order dated , designed for frontline workers like those on election duty.
The District Magistrate rejected the claim, finding no evidence of COVID infection—no RT-PCR, antigen, or blood test reports, and no death certificate attributing the cause to COVID-19. A chest X-ray (Annexure-8) noted bilateral pleural effusion suggestive of infective etiology but explicitly stated it was "inconsistent for Covid-19 infection." Kumar challenged this via a writ under .
Petitioner's Plea: Pandemic Context Should Suffice
Kumar's counsel, , argued that the government order (clauses 9, 10, 12) did not mandate a positive RT-PCR or antigen report. Citing the pandemic's prevalence, he urged inferring COVID death from the chest report's lack of other abnormalities and death within 30 days of duty. He relied on two prior Allahabad HC rulings:
- Kusum Lata Yadav v. (2022): Extended coverage to asymptomatic cases dying within 30 days of election duty or symptomatic cases detected within 30 days but dying later.
- Sadhna Sahu v. (2024): Broadly interpreted central insurance schemes for health workers, including those not strictly in COVID wards, drawing from 's Sangeeta Wahi and Supreme Court precedents on welfare schemes.
Shukla contended for a holistic, liberal reading favoring claimants.
State's Stand: Documents or Denial
Opposing, Additional Chief Standing Counsel defended the rejection, stressing clauses 9-12 require: (1) infection grade/date, (2) positive test report, and (3) COVID death proof. Without these—or a death within 30 days of a confirmed positive test—no compensation. The chest report contradicted COVID, and no infection evidence existed. Shahi argued prior cases involved proven infections, unlike here.
Court's Sharp Distinction: Proof Trumps Presumption
The bench meticulously parsed the scheme: Clause 9 demands three documents, read with clauses 10-11 allowing flexibility (e.g., blood tests if RT-PCR negative) but only for
established
infections. Death within 30 days of first positive test or a COVID death certificate could suffice, but
"no documents was placed by the petitioner evidencing the factum of infection of Covid 19."
Prior precedents were distinguished: - Kusum Lata Yadav assumed detected infections, addressing only timing (within/beyond 30 days). - Sadhna Sahu covered proven COVID deaths for non-ward staff under central schemes.
The court rejected pandemic-era inference:
"A claimant must establish a case of covid infection qua the victim by placing test reports or must have a covid death certificate to rely upon."
The writ was dismissed on
(noted as 2026 in records, likely a clerical error).
Key Observations from the Bench
"Vide clause 9, three documents are required like grade of infection of Covid 19, test report regarding positive Covid 19 and date of death of a person due to covid 19."
"In case in hand, we do not find there to be any such above document ever placed before the authority to demonstrate that a patient died due to covid 19."
"The judgment that has been relied upon... are of no help to the petitioner."
"A claimant must establish a case of covid infection qua the victim by placing test reports or must have a covid death certificate to rely upon."
Ripple Effects: Tighter Reins on Relief Schemes
This decision reinforces strict documentary proof for ex-gratia claims under the June 2021 order, closing doors to circumstantial arguments despite pandemic chaos. As external reports note, it aligns with the court's view that
"COVID Death Must Be Backed By Test Report Or Certificate,"
potentially impacting lingering claims by election workers or teachers. Families must now prioritize medical records, signaling a shift from liberal welfare interpretations to evidentiary rigor in state schemes.
