ORDER

1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner, who is the widow of deceased employee Daniel Bhabhar under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by respondent No.3, the Collector, District Dewas whereby her claim under the Mukhya Mantri COVID-19 Yoddha Kalyan Yojna (here-inafter referred to as “the scheme”) for grant of 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 late Daniel Bhabhar was working on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector in Police Department and was posted at BNP Note Press, Dewas. During COVID-19 pandemic he was on duty at Amaltas Hospital, Banger. During such period only he was infected with Corona virus and expired on 1.5.2021.

3. Since the State Government had floated the aforesaid scheme on 17.4.2020, the petitioner being widow of the deceased employee, applied for award of compensation under the scheme which provides for grant of Rs.50,00,000/- to the kin of an employee who has died on account of COVID-19 and also an employee who has died in an accident while performing COVID-19 duties. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by respondent No.3 by the impugned order on the ground that her husband does not fall under the category enumerated in Clause 3.1 of the scheme.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the claim of the petitioner squarely falls within Clause 3.1 and 3.3 of the scheme since he was on duty at Amaltas Hospital and was deputed in the drive to prevent citizens from being infected with corona virus but he himself got infected and expired. Petitioner was deputed to serve the containment area for participating in prevention drive. He was on duty to maintain law and order at hospital and was running a very high risk of having contact with COVID patients. He died on account of COVID-19 while in service and during prevention drive. He expired only on account of his duties hence the petitioner was entitled for the relief as claimed. 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 respondent No.3. It is further submitted that as per Clause 3.3 of the scheme only those employees of mentioned departments who were deputed by authorized/competent authority of the State for giving services for COVID-19 pandemic would be covered. No such order of authorized/competent authority had been passed in respect of husband of the petitioner. In absence of such mandatory deputation the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of the scheme. The petition hence deserves to be dismissed.

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

7. Clause 3.1 of the scheme on which reliance has been placed by the respondents is as under :-

^^3-1 y¨d LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foÒkx] fpfdRlk f'k{kk foÒkx ,oa vk;q"k foÒkx d¢ leLr lQkà deZpkjh] okMZokW;] ulZ] vk'kk dk;ZdrkZ] iSjkesfMDl] rduhf'k;u] MkWDVj v©j fo'ks"kK v©j vU; LokLF; dk;ZdrkZA^^

8. However there is another Clause in the scheme which has not been taken note of by the respondents but which is material for decision of this petition which is Clause 3.3 which is as under :-

^^x`g foÒkx] jktLo foÒkx] uxjh; ç'kklu foÒkx 'kgjh LFkkuh; fudk;¨a lfgr ,oa vU; foÒkx¨a d¢ deÊ t¨ d¨foM&19 egkekjh d¢ fy, viuh lsok,a çnku djus d¢ fy, jkT; ljdkj d¢ l{ke çkfèkdkjh }kjk vfèkÑr gSaA^^

9. The contention of the respondents is that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit under the scheme because she has not produced any order of the authorized/competent au