SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 1090

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA
Sadhna Sahu – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India And Others –Respondents
Writ C No. - 20071 of 2024
Decided on : 23-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Nishant Mishra, Vinay Kumar
For the Respondent: A.S.G.I., Bimalesh Ch. Tripathi, C.S.C., Sudarshan Singh

IMPORTANT POINT
Welfare schemes must be interpreted broadly to fulfill their intended purpose of providing relief to beneficiaries, especially in the context of social welfare legislation.

Headnote:

COVID-19 - Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package - Article 226, Notifications dated 28.03.2020, 26.04.2021 - The court interpreted the provisions of the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package, emphasizing that the scheme should be applied broadly to include all health workers at risk, not just those directly in COVID wards. The court highlighted the need for a liberal interpretation of welfare schemes, aligning with the principles of social justice and the directive principles of the Constitution. This interpretation influenced the court's decision to grant the petitioner the benefits of the scheme.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the rejection of her claim for benefits under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package following the death of her husband, a Ward Boy, due to COVID-19. The authorities argued that his death occurred after the coverage period and that he was not directly working in a COVID ward.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner’s husband was indeed at risk of contracting COVID-19 while working in the O.P.D., which was adjacent to the COVID section. The court rejected the narrow interpretation of the scheme by the authorities and emphasized the need for a broader understanding of the scheme's intent.

Issues: Whether the petitioner’s husband, as a Ward Boy in the O.P.D., was covered under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package despite not being directly assigned to a COVID ward, and whether the rejection of the claim was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the scheme should be interpreted liberally to include all health workers who were at risk of exposure to COVID-19, regardless of their specific assignments. The court referenced previous judgments that supported a broad interpretation of welfare legislation.

Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order rejecting the claim and directed the authorities to provide the petitioner with the ex-gratia payment under the scheme within three months.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Nishant Mishra and Sri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 2 to 6.

2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the respondent no.6 under ‘Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package : Insurance Scheme for Health Workers Fighting COVID-19’.

3. The grounds taken by the authorities are dual in nature. The first ground is that death of the petitioner’s husband took place subsequent to three months of the date 28.3.2020 and therefore, the same would not be covered by the Scheme. It is to be noted that the Scheme had been extended vide several notifications including the one bearing No. F.No.Z. 21020/16/2028-PH issued on April 26, 2021. By virtue of this notification it is clear that the Scheme was extended twice uptil 24.3.2021. Furthermore, the notification clarifies that the period shall continue for a period of 180 days w.e.f. 24.4.2021. Since the petitioner’s husband expired on 8.5.2021, he would be covered under the Scheme. The second reason given in the rejection order that the petitioner was not directly working in Covid ward but was a Ward Boy in the O.P.D. Department.

4. The beneficial schemes provided by the Government are not to be read in a technical manner and are required to be looked in a holistic manner. The relevant portion of the order dated 28.03.2020 is provided below:-

    "i. It will be a comprehensive personal accident cover of Rs. 50 lakh for ninety (90) days to a total of around 22.12 lakh public healthcare providers, including community health workers, who may have to be in direct contact and care of COVID-19 patients and who may be at risk of being impacted by this. It will also include accidental loss of life on account of contracting COVID-19."

5. Upon perusal of the said paragraph, it appears that Health Workers who may be at risk of being impacted by COVID-19 including accidental loss of life on account of contracting COVID-19 would also be included in the same order.

6. Reliance may be placed on the Delhi High Court judgment in Sangeeta Wahi -v-Union of India and others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6808. The ratio of the said judgment is provided below:-

    “8. Covid-19 Pandemic struck the country in March, 2020. Lakhs of persons lost their lives in the Pandemic. Police officials, healthcare workers, Doctors, Paramedics, etc. were braving the Pandemic and were in the line of duty to provide assistance to persons who fell victims to the life taking virus. Concerns had been raised regarding the country's healthcare system and its capacity to cope with the massive outbreak. Doctors, nurses, paramedical staff, including security staff in various hospitals, were working day and night to streamline the patients to ensure that the patients are screened at the earliest and are quarantined so that the virus does not spread. Persons who were affected by any fever were in a state of panic and not knowing what is to be done, they were rushing to hospitals not knowing where to go and whom to meet. People were crowding OPDs and the causality in the hospital to get themselves screened. At this juncture, it was these security guards, paramedical staff, who not only to ensured the safety of the hospitals but were also acting as guides by directing the patients to approach the correct centre. It, therefore, cannot be said that the security guards who were posted at various places were not in direct contact of Covid-19 patients. It is well known that Covid19 virus spread through air and any patient who was coming to the hospital could have been infected by the virus, whether he/she was symptomatic or not. The patients got in touch with many service providers, be it security guards, nurses, paramedical staff, who might or might not have been posted in the Covid-19 ward. T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top