The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has ruled that government authorities cannot deny COVID-19 ex gratia compensation solely due to the absence of a formal RT-PCR test report when official hospital records substantiate the infection and the underlying cause of death. The judgment marks a significant intervention against the rigid application of administrative requirements during the pandemic, ensuring that families of deceased employees are not deprived of financial assistance because of technical documentation hurdles that ignore existing clinical evidence.

The court’s decision settles a dispute involving the widow of a Junior Engineer who worked at the Obra Thermal Power Project, a facility operated by the Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited. The deceased employee, Ravindra Kumar Singh, had continued to perform his professional duties throughout the surge of the COVID-19 pandemic. In late April 2021, he fell ill and was admitted to a dedicated COVID-19 facility in Sonbhadra. Despite records from the government hospital confirming an antigen-positive result and his eventual death due to viral pneumonia, his claim for the ₹50,00,000 ex gratia payment was rejected by the local district administration. The primary reason cited for this rejection was the non-submission of a specific RT-PCR test report on the designated online portal, even though all other medical and employment verification documents had been processed and validated by the authorities.

Challenging Administrative Obstruction

The petitioner had initially received strong support from the project administration. The Chief General Manager had explicitly certified that the deceased had been engaged in essential services, ensuring the uninterrupted generation and supply of electricity, which was critical for the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Following a recommendation from a committee headed by the Chief Development Officer, the District Magistrate had originally approved the compensation claim in June 2021. However, in a subsequent administrative reversal in November 2021, the District Magistrate’s office rejected the claim, citing the absence of a legible RT-PCR report as the sole impediment to payment.

Representing the petitioner, counsel argued that the demand for an RT-PCR report was a technicality that ignored the comprehensive medical records already held by the state. The hospital records, including the bed-head ticket and the formal death proforma, clearly identified the cause of death as COVID-19. The court found that the government’s own scheme did not restrict confirmation of the virus solely to RT-PCR testing. Instead, the framework allowed for alternative sources of verification when standard testing methods were not utilized.

Redefining Evidentiary Standards

In its analysis, the bench comprising Justice Prakash Padia and Justice Garima Prashad scrutinized the guidelines of the ex gratia scheme. The judges emphasized that the purpose of the administrative documentation was to ascertain the truth of the incident, not to serve as an insurmountable barrier for survivors. The court noted that the state authorities had already verified the employment history and the fact of death during the initial processing of the file.

"Where the Government hospital's contemporaneous records expressly record a positive antigen result and the respondents accept the infection and cause of death, the absence of a separate copy of the test report cannot be treated as absence of proof of COVID-19," the court stated. The bench further highlighted that the medical certification of the deceased’s death, when aligned with the hospital's clinical diagnosis, carries substantial weight that cannot be overridden by the absence of a single documentary form.

The court also addressed the broader context of the pandemic, recognizing the immense pressure placed on families and healthcare systems. The judgment acknowledged that expecting survivors to possess perfect documentation for every stage of a chaotic medical crisis was unrealistic.

Administrative Hurdles Versus Legal Entitlement

The respondents had maintained that they were bound by the government order, which necessitated the uploading of specific reports on the Relief Commissioner’s portal. However, the High Court held that such administrative software limitations or portal-driven requirements could not supersede the substantive legal entitlement of a dependent to receive support. The court observed that the state’s own affidavit confirmed the validity of the certificates provided by the hospital and the project authorities.

"The asserted difficulty in uploading a separate report on the portal is an administrative difficulty and cannot justify withholding assistance where entitlement under the scheme is established by the undisputed official records," the court remarked. The ruling clarified that the primary objective of the relief scheme is to provide timely financial assistance to families who lost loved ones to the virus while they were serving the public interest.

Directing Immediate Relief

Recognizing that the petitioner had been waiting for the assistance since 2021, the court determined that remanding the case back to the District Magistrate for reconsideration would only serve to prolong the hardship. Instead, the court took the decisive step of quashing the rejection order and issuing a direct mandate to the state.

The State Government, through the Relief Commissioner and the District Magistrate of Sonbhadra, has been directed to complete the release of the ₹50,00,000 payment to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks. By resolving the matter definitively, the court has provided a clear precedent for other claimants whose cases may be stalled by similar administrative technicalities, reinforcing that verified clinical evidence from government institutions must prevail over rigid adherence to incomplete digital records. The final order ensures that the compensation process proceeds without further inquiry into the already established facts of the case.