IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, JJ.
Sasmita Das – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha and others – Respondents
W.A. No. 3036 of 2024
Decided On : 11-09-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to prior order (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding eligibility under scheme (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. lack of compliance with eligibility criteria (Para 6 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. official guidelines detailing eligibility criteria (Para 9) |
| 5. dismissal of writ appeal (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT :
MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.
1. The appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 2.1.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 35923 of 2023dismissing the writ petition.
2. The writ application was filed by the appellant-petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant was heard in extenso. Earlier the matter was heard on 19.08.2025.
4. The appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 35923 of 2023. Learned Single Judge has given the following reasons for rejecting the writ petition which are reproduced from the order dated 02.01.2024 :
“4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that after death of her husband the Petitioner had approached the Executive Engineer of the concerned department for considering her case under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that as per the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package the health workers, who perform duties relating to the COVID-19 work, are only covered under the said package and the Petitioner is no way concerned with the said health work. He further contends that the husband of the Petitioner was also not a health worker.”
5. Learned AGA supports the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition. He submits that the deceased husband of the petitioner does not come within the definition of health worker. He did not perform duties relating to COVID-19 work.
6. Considering nature of claim raised in the writ petition, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on merits of the claim made in the writ petition, by going into details of the annexures to the writ petition and also we have heard learned counsel for the appellant regarding his submissions on the said annexures.
The copy of the claim application made by the applicant-petitioner-appellant under the scheme Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana/Package has not been annexed to the writ petition and not before us. However, annexed to the writ petition are the documents indicating that the deceased husband of the petitioner was authorized to look after public health work of Community Health Center (CHC) and hospitals of Ganjam and Gajapati districts he then working as Assistant Engineer, General Public Health (GPH) subdivision. The certificate of death annexed to the writ petition (entire writ petition has been annexed to the writ appeal) has issue No. 8107/2020, indicates that the death was registered on 31.10.2020 Registration No.8317/2020. Death having occurred on 17.10.2020. There is another death certificate issued on 16.2.2022 issued by the Government Department of Health & Family Welfare in compliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dated 30th June, 2021 that is marked as Annexure-XIX to the writ petition wherein it is written that the COVID-19 Death Ascertaining Committee has certified that the person died due to COVID.
7. Annexed to the writ petition is letter dated 28.1.2022 issued by the Executive Engineer GPH Division, Bhubaneswar addressed to the Collector and District Magistrate, Ganjam (marked as Annexure-XVIII). Since the said letter has bearing on the adjudication of the writ petition, it is reproduced herein :
“OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
GPH DIVISION NO.I, BHUBANESWAR
To
Collector & District Magistrate,
Ganjam.
Sub : Submission of application for insurance claim under Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package in connection with the death of S. Binod Chandra Patro Ex-A.E GPH Section Paralakhemundi.
Ref : i) Your Letter No.765 dt 2.3.2021 and Memo No 295 /Emg. dated 25.1.2021.
ii) letter No.903 dated 15.7.2021 of Superintending Engineer P.H Circle (R&B) Bhubaneswar.
Sir,
With reference to the le
The court upheld that claims under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package necessitate strict compliance with eligibility and documentation requirements, failure of which results in dismissal.
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.
The main legal principle established is the interpretation of the Scheme to provide financial assistance to health workers who lost their lives on account of Covid-19 related duties, widening the def....
The court ruled that the absence of an RTPCR test certificate does not preclude compensation claims for frontline workers who died from Covid-19 while performing their duties.
Overwhelming medical evidence can establish COVID-19 infection for insurance claims, overriding a singular negative RTPCR result, emphasizing humane considerations in claim evaluation.
A deceased government employee who succumbed to COVID-19 while on duty should be recognized as a Covid-19 Warrior under the government's guidelines, and the rejection of entitlement based on contradi....
Authority must consistently apply its guidelines and cannot contradict its own documents pertaining to eligibility for public benefits.
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.