The definition of health workers under welfare schemes must be interpreted broadly to include all staff in direct contact with patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

JUDGMENT :

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

1. Present appeal has been preferred under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act, 1866 assailing the judgement dated 18.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge thereby allowing the underlying writ petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 4912/2021 titled Sangeeta Wahi vs. Union of India & Ors. in favor of the respondent no.1 herein.

2. The facts, shorn of unnecessary details and germane to the issue at hand and collated from the underlying writ petition and the present appeal, are as follows:-

a) The appellant through its Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India announced ‘Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance Scheme for Health Workers fighting COVID-19’ (hereinafter the Scheme) on 30.03.2020.

b) The respondent herein is a widow of a Security Guard deployed in Safdarjung Hospital during Covid-19 pandemic. The appellant no.2/Hospital, issued a permit card to the husband who was deployed by the government to perform essential services during pandemic curfew. The respondent no.1 claims that on 03.06.2020 while on duty at the Main reception of the Out Patient Department (herinafter OPD) at Safdarjung Hospital, her deceased husband fell ill. The respondent no.1 claims that even after reporting about having high fever and cough, the appellant no.2/hospital omitted and failed to attend to the deceased as he fainted on duty, was running high fever but instead sent him home in that condition and instructed him to take rest and stay away for a few days. But on 14.06.2020, he was declared brought dead. On 14/15.06.2020, appellant no.2/hospital conducted the Covid test on late husband of respondent no.1’s body which tested positive for Covid-19.

c) The respondent no.1 had approached the appellant claiming the benefit of the Scheme. She also claims the benefits of the Scheme announced by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of NCT vide its notification dated 07.04.2020 for grant of ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 1 crore to the families of the employees who died of Covid-19 while on Covid-19 duty.

d) The claim of the respondent no.1 under the Scheme was rejected by the appellant no.2/hospital vide its letter dated 07.12.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent no.1 filed the underlying writ petition claiming the reliefs under the Scheme apart from the other reliefs.

e) During the course of the proceedings before the writ court, pursuant to the order dated 20.04.2022, the appellants’ duly reconsidered the case of the respondent no.1 and after applying the parameters of the Scheme had come to the conclusion that the case of the respondent no.1 could not be covered in this case vide the minutes of meeting dated 01.09.2022 and 05.09.2022.

f) The learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 18.10.2023 directed the appellants to release a sum of Rs.50 lakhs in favour of the respondent no.1 as well as directed them to send requisite documents to the Government of NCT of Delhi. g) Hence the appellants filed the present appeal.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT:-

3. Mr. Jaswinder Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent no.1 has no case, which would qualify under the Scheme as announced by the Central Government. Referring to the letter dated 30.03.2020, the learned counsel submits that it is clear that the Scheme was to apply to certain categories of Health Workers “who may have to be in direct contact and care of Covid-19 patients”. According to him, admittedly, the deceased husband of the respondent no.1 was deployed as a Security Guard with the Main Reception of the OPD ward at the appellant no.2/hospital and not with the critical care department of the Covid-19 patients or even the area where such patients were being tested. Mr. Singh vehemently contended that the deceased husband of the respondent no.1 would thus not qualify for any entitlement under the Scheme.

4. In support of the aforesaid contentions,