Vinoda vs Others

rejection of petitioner's application; the first being that petitioner's husband passed away after completion of election duty on 26.04.2021 and therefore petitioner would not be entitled for the ex-gratia payment in terms of paragraph 12 of the Government Order dated 01.06.2021. The second ground taken is that the relevant documents which was sought from petitioner were not supplied by her and thirdly that the application was not preferred within the time frame of 15.06.2021.

5. It is submitted that so far as the first ground is concerned, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kusum Lata Yadav vs. State of UP and others, Writ C No.28249 0f 2021, has already adjudicated the aspect that the period of 30 days would be immaterial in case COVID-19 was detected within 30 days of the event.

6. With regard to second ground, it is submitted that all the relevant documents are already on record of this petition and were also supplied to the authority concerned who however has ignored the same. 3 WRIA No. 9297 of 2025

7. With regard to third ground, learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar vs State of UP and others, Writ A No.1029 of 2024 to the effect that the time boundation indicated in paragraph 14 of the Government Order dated 01.06.2021 is not mandatory or binding. It is submitted that the aforesaid judgment was never challenged and has therefore attained finality.

8. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and submits that paragraphs 12 and 14 of the Government Order dated 01.06.2021 make it evident that petitioner could not be included as a beneficiary in terms of the aforesaid clauses particularly since deceased passed away subsequent to completion of his election duty on 26.04.2021 and did not contact the Covid-19 pandemic while on election duty. It is also submitted that despite notice being sent to and received by the petitioner, the requisite documentation was not provided by her due to which the application could not be processed. He is also placed reliance on paragraph 14 of the Government Order dated

01.06.2021 to submit that the application form was not within the time limit prescribed.

9. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, the aforesaid three aspects requiring consideration would therefore (a) whether the petitioner was entitled for ex-gratia payment in terms of 4 WRIA No. 9297 of 2025 paragraph 12 of the Government Order dated

01.06.2021, inasmuch as the deceased is said to have passed away from the COVID-19 pandemic subsequent to completion of election duty on 26.04.2021? (b) whether all relevant documents were provided by petitioner for processing of her claim? (c) whether application for ex-gratia payment was required to be filed within the time limit prescribed under paragraph 14 Government Order

01.06.2021?.

10. So as far as question no.(a) is concerned, the aforesaid aspect has clearly been dealt with by Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kusum Lata Yadav (supra), in the following manner:

20. This Court would thus reject the argument of the State to approach the issue at hand purely on the basis of scientific principles as portrayed on the strength of some publication in the Lancet Journal and expect the State to implement the impugned clause of Government Order dated 1st June, 2021 without discriminating between the deaths of asymptomatic and symptomatic cases on the yardstick of 30 days from the date of election duty. It must be read beneficially for those cases too which were detected within 30 days and in that event, the date of death would become immaterial once it is on account of COVID-

29. Now coming to the aspect as to whether the 5 WRIA No. 9297 of 2025 victims named in the chart set out hereinabove have died of Covid-19 or otherwise. Sri Ashok Khare has taken us through the apex court judgement passed in the case of Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India and others. We find that deaths having taken place in the hospitals on account of Covid-19 fully stand the test of certification. The argument that the medical reports mentioning cardiac failure or otherwise may not be attributed to Covid-19 does not impress the Court for the reason that Covid-19 is an infection that may result to the mortality of a person affecting any organ be it lungs or heart etc. Once the admission of deceased persons was on account of Covid-19, the resulting cause being heart failure or dysfunction of any other organ leading to death is immaterial and would nevertheless be treated as Covid-19 death. No argument advanced consideration, therefore, having given our anxious consideration, we allow the claims in terms of our observations made hereinabove.

11. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances, it is pertinent to advert to Annexure No.5 to the writ petition being the U.P Covid Laboratory Result indicating the date of laboratory result as

09.05.2021, testifying the aspect that late Ram Bhajan was detected as COVID positive.

12. The aforesaid laboratory report and the result clearly indicates the fact that the deceased was found to be Covid positive within a period of 30 days from 26.04.2021 and therefore would be covered by paragraph 20 of the judgment rendered in the case of Kusum Lata Yadav (supra). 6 WRIA No. 9297 of 2025 In view thereof, since the COVID-19 infection was detected in the deceased within the aforesaid period of 30 days, the petitioner would therefore be entitled to the aforesaid benefits.

13. So far as the question (b) is concerned, it is evident that all relevant documents except for the document indicated at serial no.2 & 4 pertaining Committee report hospitalization report, the rest were made available by petitioner and are also appended to the present writ petition. So far as the Committee report is concerned, it is the specific assertion of petitioner that the same was never made available to her and since deceased was not admitted in any hospital, there was no occasion to furnish any such certificate as is being required at serial no.4 of the impugned order.

14. So far as the aforesaid aspect is concerned, in the considered opinion of this Court, once it is admitted that the deceased was deputed on election duty and contracted the infection within a period of 30 days from discharge from election duty, it would be deemed that he had contracted the aforesaid duties during election duty as has been held in the case of Kusum Lata Yadav (supra).

15. It is to be kept in mind that the purpose of the aforesaid Government Order dated 01.06.2021 was beneficial in nature and is required to be considered in the widest amplitude and meaning and not in a restrictive sense. Once substantial compliance has been made of the Government Order dated 01.06.2021, the applicant of the disease would definitely be covered by such beneficial 7 WRIA No. 9297 of 2025 provisions and her claim cannot be denied on such a ground as has been taken in the impugned order with regard to non-supply of every document which is being sought for. The Court therefore finds petitioner entitled for the aforesaid benefit in terms thereof.

16. So far as question (c) is concerned, the same has already been adjudicated upon by this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra) in the following manner: “ 16. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment, it is evident that since the primary purpose of the Government Order dated 01.06.2021 is beneficial in nature, no restrictive meaning can be attached to the provisions of the Government Order and therefore also it cannot be held that the time limit prescribed in Clause 14 of the Government Order is binding and that application cannot be received thereafter. No reasoning whatsoever has been indicated in the Government Order for such time boundation as indicated in Clause 14 of the Government Order. Clearly such time boundation is not in accordance with the object sought to be achieved by the Government Order and therefore, it is held that the time boundation for acceptance of applications for ex-gratia payment in terms of the Government Order dated

01.06.2021 is not mandatory or binding.

17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gaurav Kumar Bansal (supra) has clearly held that even in case claims are not 8 WRIA No. 9297 of 2025 filed, it is the duty of the State to consider the aspect of death of employees due to COVID-19 pandemic while in service purposes payment compensation to the family of deceased in the following manner:- "We direct all the concerned States that wherever the claims are rejected, the reasons for rejection communicated concerned Claimants and they may be given an opportunity to rectify their claim applications. We also observe that no claim shall be rejected on technical grounds and if there is any defect in the claim application, an opportunity should be given to the concerned Claimant to rectify the mistake so that the concerned person may be paid the compensation. Such particulars of rejection shall be sent to the concerned applicants as well as the concerned Grievance Redressal Committee (constituted pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court), within a period of one week from today."

17. Once this Court has already held that paragraph 14 of the Government Order dated

01.06.2021 mandatory binding, petitioner's application could not have been rejected on that ground.

18. In view of discussion made here-in-above, 9 WRIA No. 9297 of 2025 this Court is of the conclusive opinion that petitioner was entitled for grant of ex-gratia payment as was sought for. In view thereof, impugned order dated 03.05.2024 is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari. Since paragraph 14 of the Government Order dated

01.06.2021 has already been held to be directory in nature in the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra), there is no requirement of this Court to quash the same. Considering the aforesaid, a further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to make payment of ex-gratia compensation to petitioner in terms Government Order

01.06.2021 expeditiously within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this Order is served upon the concerned authority.

19. Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 11, 2025 Subodh/- (Manish Mathur,J.) SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

rejection of petitioner's application; the first being that petitioner's husband passed away after completion of election duty on 26.04.2021 and therefore petitioner would not be entitled for the ex-gratia payment in terms of paragraph 12 of the Government Order dated 01.06.2021. The second ground taken is that the relevant documents which was sought from petitioner were not supplied by her and thirdly that the application was not preferred within the time frame of 15.06.2021.

5. It is submitted that so far as the first ground is concerned, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kusum Lata Yadav vs. State of UP and others, Writ C No.28249 0f 2021, has already adjudicated the aspect that the period of 30 days would be immaterial in case COVID-19 was detected within 30 days of the event.

6. With regard to second ground, it is submitted that all the relevant documents are already on record of this petition and were also supplied to the authority concerned who however has ignored the same. 3 WRIA No. 9297 of 2025

7. With regard to third ground, learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar vs State of UP and others, Writ A No.1029 of 2024 to the effect that the time boundation indicated in paragraph 14 of the Government Order dated 01.06.2021 is not mandatory or binding. It is submitted that the aforesaid judgment was never challenged and has therefore attained finality.

8. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and submits that paragraphs 12 and 14 of the Government Order dated 01.06.2021 make it evident that petitioner could not be included as a beneficiary in terms of the aforesaid clauses particularly since deceased passed away subsequent to completion of his election duty on 26.04.2021 and did not contact the Covid-19 pandemic while on election duty. It is also submitted that despite notice being sent to and received by the petitioner, the requisite documentation was not provided by her due to which the application could not be processed. He is also placed reliance on paragraph 14 of the Government Order dated

01.06.2021 to submit that the application form was not within the time limit prescribed.

9. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, the aforesaid three aspects requiring consideration would therefore (a) whether the petitioner was entitled for ex-gratia payment in terms of 4 WRIA No. 9297 of 2025 paragraph 12 of the Government Order dated

01.06.2021, inasmuch as the deceased is said to have passed away from the COVID-19 pandemic subsequent to completion of election duty on 26.04.2021? (b) whether all relevant documents were provided by petitioner for processing of her claim? (c) whether application for ex-gratia payment was required to be filed within the time limit prescribed under paragraph 14 Government Order

01.06.2021?.

10. So as far as question no.(a) is concerned, the aforesaid aspect has clearly been dealt with by Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kusum Lata Yadav (supra), in the following manner:

20. This Court would thus reject the argument of the State to approach the issue at hand purely on the basis of scientific principles as portrayed on the strength of some publication in the Lancet Journal and expect the State to implement the impugned clause of Government Order dated 1st June, 2021 without discriminating between the deaths of asymptomatic and symptomatic cases on the yardstick of 30 days from the date of election duty. It must be read beneficially for those cases too which were detected within 30 days and in that event, the date of death would become immaterial once it is on account of COVID-

29. Now coming to the aspect as to whether the 5 WRIA No. 9297 of 2025 victims named in the chart set out hereinabove have died of Covid-19 or otherwise. Sri Ashok Khare has taken us through the apex court judgement passed in the case of Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India and others. We find that deaths having taken place in the hospitals on account of Covid-19 fully stand the test of certification. The argument that the medical reports mentioning cardiac failure or otherwise may not be attributed to Covid-19 does not impress the Court for the reason that Covid-19 is an infection that may result to the mortality of a person affecting any organ be it lungs or heart etc. Once the admission of deceased persons was on account of Covid-19, the resulting cause being heart failure or dysfunction of any other organ leading to death is immaterial and would nevertheless be treated as Covid-19 death. No argument advanced consideration, therefore, having given our anxious consideration, we allow the claims in terms of our observations made hereinabove.

11. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances, it is pertinent to advert to Annexure No.5 to the writ petition being the U.P Covid Laboratory Result indicating the date of laboratory result as

09.05.2021, testifying the aspect that late Ram Bhajan was detected as COVID positive.

12. The aforesaid laboratory report and the result clearly indicates the fact that the deceased was found to be Covid positive within a period of 30 days from 26.04.2021 and therefore would be covered by paragraph 20 of the judgment rendered in the case of Kusum Lata Yadav (supra). 6 WRIA No. 9297 of 2025 In view thereof, since the COVID-19 infection was detected in the deceased within the aforesaid period of 30 days, the petitioner would therefore be entitled to the aforesaid benefits.

13. So far as the question (b) is concerned, it is evident that all relevant documents except for the document indicated at serial no.2 & 4 pertaining Committee report hospitalization report, the rest were made available by petitioner and are also appended to the present writ petition. So far as the Committee report is concerned, it is the specific assertion of petitioner that the same was never made available to her and since deceased was not admitted in any hospital, there was no occasion to furnish any such certificate as is being required at serial no.4 of the impugned order.

14. So far as the aforesaid aspect is concerned, in the considered opinion of this Court, once it is admitted that the deceased was deputed on election duty and contracted the infection within a period of 30 days from discharge from election duty, it would be deemed that he had contracted the aforesaid duties during election duty as has been held in the case of Kusum Lata Yadav (supra).

15. It is to be kept in mind that the purpose of the aforesaid Government Order dated 01.06.2021 was beneficial in nature and is required to be considered in the widest amplitude and meaning and not in a restrictive sense. Once substantial compliance has been made of the Government Order dated 01.06.2021, the applicant of the disease would definitely be covered by such beneficial 7 WRIA No. 9297 of 2025 provisions and her claim cannot be denied on such a ground as has been taken in the impugned order with regard to non-supply of every document which is being sought for. The Court therefore finds petitioner entitled for the aforesaid benefit in terms thereof.

16. So far as question (c) is concerned, the same has already been adjudicated upon by this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra) in the following manner: “ 16. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment, it is evident that since the primary purpose of the Government Order dated 01.06.2021 is beneficial in nature, no restrictive meaning can be attached to the provisions of the Government Order and therefore also it cannot be held that the time limit prescribed in Clause 14 of the Government Order is binding and that application cannot be received thereafter. No reasoning whatsoever has been indicated in the Government Order for such time boundation as indicated in Clause 14 of the Government Order. Clearly such time boundation is not in accordance with the object sought to be achieved by the Government Order and therefore, it is held that the time boundation for acceptance of applications for ex-gratia payment in terms of the Government Order dated

01.06.2021 is not mandatory or binding.

17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gaurav Kumar Bansal (supra) has clearly held that even in case claims are not 8 WRIA No. 9297 of 2025 filed, it is the duty of the State to consider the aspect of death of employees due to COVID-19 pandemic while in service purposes payment compensation to the family of deceased in the following manner:- "We direct all the concerned States that wherever the claims are rejected, the reasons for rejection communicated concerned Claimants and they may be given an opportunity to rectify their claim applications. We also observe that no claim shall be rejected on technical grounds and if there is any defect in the claim application, an opportunity should be given to the concerned Claimant to rectify the mistake so that the concerned person may be paid the compensation. Such particulars of rejection shall be sent to the concerned applicants as well as the concerned Grievance Redressal Committee (constituted pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court), within a period of one week from today."

17. Once this Court has already held that paragraph 14 of the Government Order dated

01.06.2021 mandatory binding, petitioner's application could not have been rejected on that ground.

18. In view of discussion made here-in-above, 9 WRIA No. 9297 of 2025 this Court is of the conclusive opinion that petitioner was entitled for grant of ex-gratia payment as was sought for. In view thereof, impugned order dated 03.05.2024 is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari. Since paragraph 14 of the Government Order dated

01.06.2021 has already been held to be directory in nature in the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra), there is no requirement of this Court to quash the same. Considering the aforesaid, a further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to make payment of ex-gratia compensation to petitioner in terms Government Order

01.06.2021 expeditiously within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this Order is served upon the concerned authority.

19. Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 11, 2025 Subodh/- (Manish Mathur,J.) SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench