Applicants for pandemic-related ex gratia compensation must provide verifiable medical evidence, such as diagnostic reports or death certification, to establish the cause of death; a claim remains unsubstantiated without proof of the underlying infection, regardless of the liberal intent of welfare policies.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Neeraj Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Suresh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the respondent No.- 3 and Sri P.K. Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has questioned the validity of the order dated 4th September, 2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Firozabad, whereby claim of the petitioner for ex gracia compensation for his wife dying of covid- 19 has come to be rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents has manifestly erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for ex gracia compensation for the reasons that the Government order in that regard has not been correctly interpreted to hold that the petitioner's wife did not dye of covid- 19. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's wife was working as Assistant Teacher in a basic school while she was allotted election duty on 7th April, 2021 while going for duty she suffered Covid-19 and ultimately when her condition worsen she was taken to the hospital on 27th April, 2021 but she could not survive and met untimely death on that date itself.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the chest report of the petitioner's wife was available on record and according to which no abnormality otherwise was seen which could have been said to be a cause of death and, therefore, since covid pandemic 19 was prevailing in those days it should be taken a death of Covid-19 only. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the Government order dated 1st June, 2021 it was not necessary for one to have obtained positive RTPCR report or Antigen report and therefore, in the circumstances, if death takes places within 30 days of the infection or otherwise, such a patient being admitted to the hospital such death should be taken as a death due to covid and such cases, therefore, should be taken to be covered within the meaning as assigned to covid patient under the Government order dated 1st June, 2021.

5. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court to the relevant provisions of the Government order as contained in clause -9, 10 and 12.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon two authorities of this Court, one in the case of Kusum Lata Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 others being Writ – C No.- 28249 of 2021 along with connected matters decided on 25th July, 2022 and another judgment of a coordinate Bench in the case of Sadhna Sahu v. Union of India and 5 others being Writ – C No.- 20071 of 2024 decided on 23rd July, 2024. In respect of the judgment in the case of Kusum Lata Yadav (supra), the petitioner has placed reliance upon paragraph 17 of judgment, which is reproduced hereunder:

"17. Having regard to the three parameters provided in para-12, this Court would note that any case detected beyond the period of 30 days from election duty as covid positive is certainly a category not covered under the scheme. The death of asymptomatic cases within 30 days of election duty as per the mandate of government order is covered under the G.O. Provided the death certificate on account of COVID- 19 is produced by the claimants. This principle broadens the scope of G.O. for symptomatic cases where the infection after election duty was detected within 30 days, however, death in such a case occu