Back
Bombay HC Equates Supervisor's Pandemic Peril to Drivers', Orders Rs 50L Payout to MSRTC Widow
In a poignant ruling amid lingering COVID memories, the has directed the to pay Rs 45 lakh (adjusting Rs 5 lakh already disbursed) to the widow of a traffic supervisor who succumbed to the virus shortly after risky frontline duties. Justices M.S. Karnik and S.M. Modak slammed MSRTC's " ," holding that supervisory roles involving interaction with bus crews exposed the deceased to identical perils as drivers and conductors.
Case Title : Smt. Sunita Bapu Jagtap v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. & Ors. [ No. 5699 of 2024]; Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 93.
Deputed to Danger: A Deadly Shift
Bapu Jagtap, an MSRTC employee, was deputed on , to 's Wadala Depot in Mumbai to supervise excess traffic during the brutal second COVID wave. He joined duty on and worked until , interacting with drivers and conductors ferrying essential passengers. Feeling unwell, he took leave from , returned to Nashik, tested COVID-positive on , and died two days later on from COVID pneumonia and respiratory failure, as certified by .
His wife, Sunita Jagtap, sought Rs 50 lakh under Resolutions (GRs) dated , and —extending insurance-like cover to public undertaking staff—and MSRTC Circular dated . MSRTC rejected her pleas via letters in and , claiming he wasn't a driver in "essential" or interstate services, offering only Rs 5 lakh under a lesser scheme.
Petitioner's Plea vs. Corporation's Caveats
Sunita argued for a broad reading of the MSRTC circular, which targeted
"drivers, conductors, controllers, security guards"
in passenger contact, insisting supervision equated to such exposure. She highlighted GR extensions to all state undertakings like MSRTC till
, and her husband's duty fulfilling the 14-day pre-death work precondition.
MSRTC countered strictly: Bapu wasn't driving, wasn't in "essential services," and fell under Circular 32 of 2021 for Rs 5 lakh payout to non-qualifiers. They stressed , noting his brief stint and non-driver role, while depositing the lower sum.
Precedents Pave Benevolent Path
The bench drew from kindred cases to dismantle hyper-technical barriers:
- In Ramesh Balu Patil v. State of Maharashtra (WP 15235/ ), it ruled infection date—not death—triggers coverage under GRs.
- Sunil Shankar Mohite v. Union of India (WP 7359/ ) rejected "hostile" nitpicking on hospital recognition for a COVID-treating staff nurse.
- 's Pradeep Arora v. Director, Health Dept. (SLP 16860/2021) affirmed requisitioned COVID duties qualify for benefits.
These underscored schemes' welfare intent over rigid confines.
" " No More: Court's Rationale
The judges reasoned Bapu's traffic oversight demanded field engagement with bus staff, mirroring their virus exposure in a lockdown era when
"life came to a standstill"
yet transport limped on. MSRTC's oversight forgot "precarious situations" under
, and
.
Key Observations
"In discharge of his duty, the deceased was supposed to interact and came in contact with the drivers and conductors who were actually involved in driving the buses thereby exposing him to the same risk as the drivers and conductors."
"We are constrained to hold that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have taken aof the Circular. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 have forgotten the precarious situation prevailing during COVID period..."
"It was part of duty of the husband of the petitioner to attend the job which he has done at the risk of his life."
Full Payout, Timely Terms
The writ succeeded: Rejection letters quashed. MSRTC must pay Rs 45 lakh within 8 weeks, or face 6% interest thereafter. This sets for inclusive readings of COVID schemes, potentially aiding overlooked frontline kin in transport and beyond, affirming welfare over wordplay.
