COVID-19 policy covers traffic controllers in public contact; cut-off date means infection before 30/9/2020, not death; state extensions binding on corporations, entitling family to compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Talkute, learned Counsel for Petitioner, Mr. Rananaware, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 and Mr. Kalel, learned AGP for Respondent No.1/State.

2. By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging order dated 15/2/2021, by which, it has been held that as the deceased husband of the Petitioner i.e. Dattatraya Shinde was not doing actual duty related to COVID-19 pandemic, and therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for the compensation which is to be given to the family members of the employees, who succumbed to COVID-19 pandemic while performing their duties.

3. Before setting out the rival contentions and consideration of the same, it is relevant to note certain factual aspects. Chart of date and events has been handed over by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, which is set out herein below :-

4. As per the contention of the Petitioner, her husband was working as a Traic Controller at the relevant time from 1/2/2020 to 22/9/2020. In fact it is her case that her husband was working as a Bus Conductor at the relevant time i.e. between 23/9/2020 upto 27/9/2020. It is admitted position that on 28/9/2020 the Petitioner’s husband was declared as COVID positive and was admitted in the Hospital i.e. Shlok Hospital, Pune. However, as facilities were not available at Shlok Hospital, the Petitioner’s husband was admitted in Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune on 30/9/2020, where he succumbed to COVID-19 on 15/10/2020.

5. It is the submission of Mr. Talkute, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the Petitioner’s case is covered by the Policy dated 1/6/2020 of the Respondent No.2/Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC). He submits that although the period of policy is till 30/9/2020, however, admittedly the Petitioner’s husband was declared as COVID-19 positive on 28/9/2020 and he was admitted in Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune on 30/9/2020 and ultimately succumbed to COVID-19 on 15/10/2020. He submits that as the Petitioner has been detected as sufering from COVID on 28/9/2020, the said policy dated 1/6/2020 of the Respondent No.2 is applicable to the Petitioner.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Rananaware, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2/MSRTC submitted that as cut of date is speciied as 30/9/2020, the Petitioner’s husband is not covered by the said policy. Apart from that, it is his contention that the Petitioner’s husband was not doing the duty in public, and therefore, case of the Petitioner’s husband is not covered under the said policy.

7. As set out herein above, Petitioner’s husband was working as a Traic Controller at the relevant time. In fact, it is the case of the Petitioner that her husband was working as a Bus Conductor between 23/9/2020 to 27/9/2020. However, even if it is assumed that as per the contention of the Petitioner that the Petitioner’s husband was working as a Traic Controller at the relevant time between 1/2/2020 to 22/9/2020, what is relevant to note is, paragraph No. 3 of the policy dated 1/6/2020 of the Respondent No.2, which reads as under :

Thus, it is clear that even the Traic Controllers are covered by the policy.

8. In this behalf it is relevant to note in the statement dated 29/7/2020 of Petitioner’s husband – Dattatraya Shinde i.e. Traic Controller of S. T. Depot, Satara, wherein he has stated that he has brought in a Jeep No. MH-06-BM-0654 on 9/4/2020 along with four drivers from their respective residence to Navodaya Vidyalay