Government policies providing ex-gratia compensation to frontline workers during a pandemic must be interpreted liberally. Distinguishing between routine and emergency duties to deny benefits is arbitrary when the worker's role necessitated performance of services in exposure-prone environments during a public health crisis.

JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-

“a) To quash the order dated 03.11.2023 issued by the competent authority chaired by the Group of ministers undersigned by SDM-II(HQ).

b) Direction to the Respondent authority to release the compensation of exgratia of Rs 1 crore to the family of late Dr. Raja Ram Singh, Vice Principal/HoS, Gbsss, C –Block, Sangam Vihar, Delhi expired on 29.05.2021 due to illness (covid-19) in terms of the cabinet decision no. 2835 dated 13th May, 2020.

c) As such other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice; And for this act of kindness the petitioner above named shall ever pray.

d) Award costs in favour of the Petitioner and against the respondents.”

2. The petition is filed by Smt. Prem Sheela Kumari, the widow of late Raja Ram Singh (“Deceased”), who was admitted in Dr. Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini on 03.05.2021 and expired on 29.05.2021 owing to the COVID-19 disease. The petitioner‟s challenge is to the order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the Group of Ministers (“GoM”), denying ex gratia compensation of a sum of Rs. 1 Crore under the Cabinet Decision dated 13.05.2020.

3. The facts of the case would indicate that under a special coronavirus relief initiative named "Mukhya Corona Sahayata Yojana" dry rations were distributed at approximately 550 designated centres across Delhi from 07.04.2020. The then District Magistrate selected GBSSS, C-Block, Sangam Vihar, Delhi as one of the centres for ration distribution and designated it as a “Hunger Relief Centre”. The deceased, who was working as the Head of School/Vice Principal, was directed to supervise and monitor the distribution of both cooked food and dry ration while adhering to COVID protocols. Despite performing his regular duties and administrative responsibilities, the deceased continued to provide additional services by supervising and monitoring the ration centre operating within the school premises.

4. Thereafter, in the second phase of the lockdown commencing from 19.04. 2021, the deceased, in his capacity as the Head of School (HoS)/Vice Principal, diligently fulfilled the duties assigned by the District Magistrate. These responsibilities included overseeing the distribution of dry rations, coordinating the distribution of mid-day meals within the school, and supervising the operations of the Hunger Relief Centre, all in accordance with directions from higher authorities. Unfortunately, on 02.05.2021, while actively engaged in these duties, he contracted the COVID-19 virus, and upon being admitted to Dr. Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, New Delhi, on 03.05.2021, ultimately succumbed to COVID-19.

5. The sole reason given by the GoM to deny the entitlement of the petitioner for ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 1 Crore, is that the petitioner was performing his routine duty as a HOS/Vice Principal and the case does not relate to covid duty as enunciated in the meeting held on 05.10.2023. The recommendations of the GoM held on 05.10.2023 is extracted as under:-

“The Group of Ministers was of the consideration that the case is not covered under Cabinet Decision No. 2835 dated 13.05.2020. The deceased was performing his routine duty as a HOS/Vice Principal. However, it was not a Covid duty. The case does not relate to covid duty as enunciated in the meeting on 13.09.2023.”

6. It, however, remains undisputed that the Deputy Director who had attended the meeting on 13.09.2023, clarified that the deceased was deployed at the Centre, which was designated b