Article 226 / Right to Compensation
Subject : Constitutional Law - Administrative Law
In a significant ruling for the families of public servants who perished during the pandemic, the Allahabad
The petitioner, Smt. Raj Kumari, is the widow of Late Kaushal Kishore, a lecturer at Janta Inter College, Bakewar, Etawah. In April 2021—at the height of the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic—Kishore was deployed for polling duties for the Tristariya Panchayat Election. Shortly after his service, he developed severe respiratory distress and fever. After medical consultations and a series of lab tests, he was confirmed to be COVID-19 positive on April 29, 2021, and tragically passed away on May 1, 2021.
Under a Government Order dated June 1, 2021, the State provided an ex-gratia payment of ₹30 lakhs for employees who died within one month of performing election duty. Despite meeting all criteria, Smt. Raj Kumari’s claim was rejected by the District Magistrate of Etawah based on the contention that there was "no proof of infection."
The petitioner argued that she had submitted comprehensive medical records, including hospital prescriptions and official COVID-19 lab results. The State, in its counter-affidavit, asserted that these documents were unreliable because two hospital doctors claimed not to have signed the specific medical slips, labeling the records as effectively forged.
The High Court bench, comprising Hon’ble Ajit Kumar and Hon’ble Swarupama Chaturvedi, JJ., found these arguments deeply flawed. The court identified that the laboratory results featured legitimate Case IDs (Case ID-EWHN0031698480) and emergency tokens, which the State failed to dispute.
The Court emphasized that administrative bodies cannot invalidate life-saving evidence based solely on procedural technicalities or incomplete statements from staff.
> "In our considered view, respondent concerned was not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compensation only on the basis of the statements of two doctors without verifying the facts from the lab and the hospital having ID details and the patient details already on record."
The bench further addressed the argument regarding missing signatures:
> "The Antigen positive report also bears the Emergency Lab ID as 793 and naturally, therefore, the test results would bear the signature of the technician or the person superintending the lab and not a doctor/medical officer necessarily [...] merely because it was not signed by any doctor it would not become a forged document."
The Allahabad
This decision serves as a stern reminder to administrative authorities that in matters concerning welfare schemes and public service, the evidentiary standard should be directed at uncovering the truth rather than finding reasons to deny a valid claim.
View the social posts created for this story.
ex-gratia - compensation - administrative - verification - medical-evidence
#AllahabadHighCourt #CovidExGratia
SC Notifies Over 7,300 Cases for Listing During Partial Working Days of 2026
24 May 2026
Religious Discrimination in Housing: A Silent Civil Crisis
24 May 2026
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy Named to Corporate Panel
24 May 2026
Congress Leader Alka Lamba Convicted Under BNS Sections 132, 221, 223(a), 285 for 2024 Protest Violence: Rouse Avenue Court
26 May 2026
Supreme Court Grants Bail to Former Chhattisgarh Excise Commissioner in PMLA and Corruption Cases
26 May 2026
Regulating the Fiat-Crypto Gateway: A Critical Analysis
26 May 2026
Kerala High Court Adopts Calcutta Child Custody Guidelines
02 Jun 2026
High Court Upholds Acquittal in Murder Case Citing Tainted Investigation and Ante-Dated FIR
03 Jun 2026
Incorrect Statutory Provision in Bail Appeal Does Not Bar Substantive Rights: Punjab and Haryana HC Grants Bail in UAPA Case
03 Jun 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.