Back
Police Personnel on Pandemic Duty Qualify as 'COVID Warriors' for :
The has delivered a landmark ruling affirming that police personnel deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic are entitled to status as "COVID Warriors," thereby making their families eligible for state-mandated compensation. In a judgment that prioritizes swift justice over bureaucratic delays, the bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary set aside a that had denied a widow's claim for .
The Tragedy Behind the Legal Battle The was filed by Semma Bharti, the widow of the late Balwant Pratap, a Head Constable in the . Following her husband's death due to COVID-19 in —while he was actively engaged in containment duties and spreading public awareness—Ms. Bharti sought the promised payment of ₹50 lakh under the 's welfare scheme.
However, her claim was rejected by authorities on
, on the grounds that the deceased’s specific roles did not qualify under the state's narrow definition of
"COVID roktham, upchar and bachao,"
which authorities argued excluded him from standard "COVID-duty" definitions.
A Broad Interpretation of 'Essential Service' Challenging this "myopic" interpretation, the scrutinized the evidentiary support provided, including a certificate from the confirming the cause of death as COVID-19, and a formal recommendation for compensation from the itself.
The Court drew heavily on its recent decision in , emphasizing that the definition of COVID-duty must extend to essential service employees who kept society functioning during lockdowns. The Court noted:
"Government employees engaged in the,,,and such other essential services departments who worked during COVID-Period should be taken to be on COVID-Duty as their discharge of duties helped thein containing the spread of pandemic."
Curbing the '
' A significant aspect of the judgment was the Court’s explicit refusal to follow the common practice of remanding the case back to authorities for reconsideration. Recognizing that the petitioner had been waiting for over five years for a resolution that was rightfully hers, the bench cited the recent
stance in
, which discourages courts from
"throwing the ball out of the court"
to avoid accountability.
Key Observations The ’s ruling serves as a stern reminder to state authorities regarding their duty to welfare claimants:
-
On the definition of duty:
"A myopic interpretation cannot be given to COVID-Duty so as to confine only to those persons, who were specially assigned to discharge their duties in treatment of people physically in hospitals."
-
On judicial efficiency:
"There is no doubt about the fact that the '
,' so routinely adopted these days and if we may use the expression - to throw the ball out of the Court, is counterproductive and harms the system."
-
On the necessity of
:
"When a claim of a right is legal and justified,
must follow. The
are not intended for academic discourse."
Final Verdict and Implications Allowing the , the Court the rejection order and directed the state authorities to release the ₹50 lakh compensation within eight weeks. This decision provides a crucial precedent for other families of frontline workers who have struggled with administrative hurdles to access death benefits. By broadening the scope of what constitutes "COVID duty," the has ensured that those who risked their lives in essential services—from police officers to utility staff—receive the respect and financial support promised to them during the height of the crisis.
