ORDER

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner who is wife of the deceased employee Sarvagya Singh Sisodiya under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 6.4.2022 passed by Deputy Relief Commissioner, Bhopal whereby her claim under the Mukhyamantri Covid-19 Yodha Kalyan Yojna (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme') for compensation on account of death of her husband while performing Covid-19 duties has been rejected.

2. In brief facts of the case are that petitioner's husband was working onthe post of Assistant Engineer in Gramin Vikas Yantrika Sewa at Division Agar Malwa. Due to spread of Covid-19 Pandamic he was appointed and posted as observer by order dated 17.4.2021. He was entrusted the duty of collection of information as detailed therein and was also to carry out surprise inspection of containment area. While performing the duties entrusted upon him petitioner's husband became Covid-19 positive and eventually expired on 15.5.2021. His two sons also got Covid-19 positive and expired on 8.5.2021 and 6.6.2021 respectively.

3. Since the State Government had floated the aforesaid Scheme on17.4.2020, the petitioner being wife of the deceased applied for award of compensation under the Scheme which provides for grant of Rs. 50 lacs to thek in of an employee who has died on account of Covid-19 and also the employee who has died in an accident while performing Covid-19 duties. The claim of petitioner was rejected by respondent No.3 by order dated 13.12.2021on the ground that her husband does not fall under the category enumerated in Clause 3.1 of the Scheme. Being aggrieved by the said order son of petitioner Kunal Singh Sisodiya submitted a representation dated 21.12.2021 before respondent No. 2 for re-consideration of claim of the petitioner which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 6.4.2022 for the reason that petitioner's husband was appointed as observer to establish correspondence and to gather information regarding barricading in rural area hence does not fulfill the eligibility criteria under Clause 3.1 of the Scheme.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that claim of the petitioner squarely falls within Clause 3.1 of the Scheme as her husband had not been given merely the duty of collecting the information as regards establishment of containment area and for making the same available along with photographs and for establishing co-ordination between the Assistant Engineer and Deputy Engineer of the containment area. He had also been specifically given the duty of carrying out surprise inspection of containment area due towhich he was required to visit the area. He had been in the actual field and was not merely sitting in his office establishing co-ordination. Apparently, he contacted Covid-19 disease on account of his duties. It is hence submitted that the impugned order be quashed and the respondents be directed to extend the benefit of the Scheme to the petitioner.

5. Reply has been filed by the respondents traversing the averments made in the petition and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out since the present case does not confirm to the conditions for grant as provided under Clause 3.1 of the Scheme hence petitioner's claim has rightly been rejected by the respondents. It is further submitted that petitioner's husband was only required to sit in the office and to collect the information from various sources as was directed therein and to forward the same alongwith photographs to higher authorities. He was not physically required to go out for performance of his duty hence it cannot be said that he contacted Covid-19 only as a result of the duties entrusted to him. It is hence submitted that the petition be dismissed.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

7. Clause 3.1 of the Scheme reads as under :--

3-1 ,sls 'kkldh; dehZ] tks dksfoM dh jksdFkke gsrq izR;{k :i ls viuh lsok,a ns jgs gSa vFkk