ORDER

1. Heard finally with the consent of the counsel for the parties.

2] This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who happens to be the daughter of the deceased employee, Durga w/o. Jagdish Yadav under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against orders dated 10.12.2020, and 14.12.2020 passed by the respondent No.3 the Collector, Barwani and respondent No.4 the District Program Officer, Department of Women and Child Development, Barwani respectively. Vide order dated 10.12.2020, the petitioner's claim of Rs.50 lakhs on account of death of her mother while performing Covid-19 duties has been rejected by the respondent no.4 District Program Officer and on 14.12.2020, the respondent No.4 has also rejected the same..

3] Although in the petition, relief of compassionate appointment has also been sought, however, the State Government has already granted the aforesaid relief, so the petitioner is only claiming relief [B] which refers to grant of insurance claim of Rs.50 lakhs on account of death of her mother Durga under the State Government's Scheme known as 'Mukhyamantri Covid 19 Yodha Kalyan Yojana'.

4] In brief the facts of the case are that the mother of the petitioner Smt. Durga was posted as Sahyika at Aganwadi No.1, Gram Panchayat: Dhanora, Village: Dhanora, District: Barwani and on 05.04.2020, while she was on her way to distribute nutritious food (Sattu) to the villagers, she stumbled upon a stone and got injured. She was taken to the Hospital, however, due to the aggravation of the injury, she died on 29.04.2020, due to Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT), a medical condition. Since the State Government had already floated the aforesaid Scheme 'Mukhyamantri Covid 19 Yodha Kalyan Yojana' on 17.04.2020, which was also made applicable to Aganwadi Sahyika on 25.04.2020, the petitioner being the daughter of the deceased Durga, also applied for the compensation under the aforesaid scheme, which provides grant of Rs.50 lakhs to the kin 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 the petitioner was rejected by the respondents vide their orders dated 10.12.2020 and 14.12.2020 holding that the death has occasioned not on account of any accident, but by a sudden fall while walking, resulting in the injury on the leg of the deceased employee, regarding which neither the FIR was lodged nor the postmortem was conducted and as the death occasioned after 24 days, hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the insurance amount under the Scheme.

5] Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the report dated 07.12.2020, submitted by Tehsildar Barwani, which clearly states that the mother of the petitioner has died on account of sudden fall while she was on her way to distribute the nutritious food (Sattu) while performing her Covid-19 duties, and as she suffered grievous injuries on her leg, she has died on account of the same. Counsel has also submitted that merely because the FIR was not lodged and the postmortem was not conducted, a person cannot be denied the benefit of the aforesaid scheme, which is beneficial in nature. Counsel has also submitted that the term accident has also not been defined in the aforesaid scheme but even otherwise an incident can be termed as an accident taking note of the surrounding circumstances and t is not necessary that in every accident, an FIR be lodged and the postmortem be conducted. Counsel has submitted that when Tehsildar himself has given a report that the mother of the petitioner has died while she was performing Covid 19 duties, there was no necessity to lodge the FIR as she has died after 24 days on account of complications of the injury and there was no need to conduct the postmortem. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned orders be quashed and the respondents be directed to extend the benefit of the scheme to the petitioner, who has lost her mother, and whose father ha