Bombay HC directs Maharashtra govt to pay ₹50 lakh benefit to COVID duty staff’s family

The Kolhapur Bench of the Bombay High Court on Tuesday (December 23, 2025) directed the Maharashtra government to grant ex gratia insurance benefit of ₹ 50 lakh to the family of a contractual data entry operator who died of COVID-19 after serving on pandemic duty and held that the date of contracting the infection and not the date of death should determine eligibility under the scheme.

Justices MS Karnik and Ajit B. Kadethankar reversed the May 24, 2022 order of the Department of Public Health rejecting the claim of petitioner Ramesh Balu Patil, whose wife Sarita Patil died on July 4, 2021. The state rejected this aid on the grounds that the plan was only in effect until June 30, 2021.

Petitioner’s lawyer NB Khaire argued that Sarita Patil contracted COVID-19 while performing official duties at a Primary Health Center under the National Rural Health Mission: “It is undisputed that the late Sarita Ramesh Patil was in the service of the State Government and was performing duties related to Covid patients when she was exposed to Covid infection. Although her term expired after June 30, 2021, she got infected before that date. The scheme is charitable and should not be implemented with technical rigidity.”

Opposing the contention, Assistant Government Advocate (AGP) Tejas J. Kapre said, “Insurance cover and ex-gratia is a scheme introduced and implemented only for a specific period. Restricting the scheme to this period is a policy decision of the State Government. The authority concerned was right in rejecting the petitioner’s request.”

Rejecting the State’s position, the Board observed: “Under the Government Decision dated 29 May 2020 read with the Government Decision dated 14 May 2021, what is important for granting insurance cover is not the date of death but the date of contracting Covid-19 infection.”

On the state’s argument that contractual employees were excluded, the judges said, “The suffering and pain of family members of a Covid warrior are the same irrespective of the nature of employment. Dismissal of a claim on the ground that the deceased employee was merely an outsourced contract employee would defeat the very purpose of the scheme.”

The court referred to the constitutional principles of justice and social gratitude: “To deny or limit assistance to those who have passed away after June 30, 2021, would be contrary to the values ​​of justice, fairness and dignity that animate our constitutional order, as well as to public conscience and social gratitude.”

He also emphasized the moral imperative behind the plan: “The challenges faced by these workers and their families during the pandemic have been enormous and deserve recognition beyond mere symbolic gestures. Monetary assistance provided through a generous interpretation of the GR provides tangible relief to these families.”

The judges added: “The nature of service of a Covid warrior who dies in the line of duty due to Covid infection is immaterial to avail the benefits of the insurance scheme to the family members of that employee. The State must act with sensitivity towards the sufferers and not allow procedural rigor to trump substantive justice.”

The court directed the State and Health Department to process and release the benefit within eight weeks with the help of District Health Officer Kolhapur.