Smt. Kusum Kumari v. State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Medical Health And Family Welfare Lko. And

1. Heard Mr. Hari Prasad Gupta learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for opposite parties 1 to 4. Despite revision of the list, no one has put in an appearance on behalf of opposite party No.5 although the name of Mr. Bhanu Prakash Dubey has been printed in the cause list. The petition therefore is being decided in the absence of learned counsel for opposite party No.5.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 21st December 2023 whereby petitioner's application for the grant of benefit of the 'Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance Scheme for Health Workers Fighting COVID-19' has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that her husband late Dr. Rajendra Kumar being a Pediatrician was re-employed and posted at Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee (Civil) Hospital, Lucknow and while on duty fell ill on 3rd June 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequently passed away on 2nd July 2022. It is submitted that the medical certificate issued by King Georges Medical University clearly indicates death having occurred due to COVID pandemic. He has submitted that however by means of impugned order, the application has been rejected only on the ground that the claim was preferred beyond the cut-off date of 31st July 2023. Learned counsel has thereafter adverted to paragraph 5 of the short counter affidavit dated Ist November 2025 filed by Director of the Civil Hospital to advert that the opposite parties clearly admit the fact that the petitioner's first application dated 24th August 2022 was submitted before the deadline 2 WRIA No. 11972 of 2025 indicated in the scheme. It is therefore submitted that the basic premise of rejection was baseless.

4. Learned State counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and has adverted to the government order dated 7th April 2020, which is the scheme prescribing compensation in cases of demise of government employees or persons engaged for such performance who passed away and are covered by the aforesaid scheme. It is submitted that paragraph 2 (1) & (3) clearly indicates conditions whereby only the compensation can be awarded. It is therefore submitted that it is only in case where the government hospital or institution concerned and the deceased have been particularly nominated or directed for the purposes of treatment of COVID patients that the scheme would have application. It is submitted that in the present case since neither the hospital nor the deceased were nominated or directed for treatment of COVID patients, petitioner would not come within purview of government order dated 7th April 2020 and therefore even otherwise, the benefit as claimed cannot be granted to petitioner.

5. In response thereto learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Division Bench of this court in the case of Sadhana Sahu versus Union of India and others, 2024 SCC Online All 4907 to submit that the aforesaid provisions of the government order have already been watered down in view of beneficial nature of the provision. It is submitted that said judgment in turn places reliance on judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in the case of Sangeeta Wahi versus Union of India, 2023 SCC Online Del 6808.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that impugned order has been passed rejecting petitioner's application for compensation in terms of scheme only on the ground that application was submitted beyond the cut off date of 31st July 2023.

7. The aforesaid ground has clearly been denied in paragraph 5 of counter affidavit itself, which admits that first application of petitioner under the scheme was, in fact, preferred on 24th August 2022 which was before the deadline of 31st July 2023.

8. Nonetheless, since additional grounds have been taken in counter affidavit 3 WRIA No. 11972 of 2025 pertaining to eligibility of petitioner for grant of benefit, same is being adjudicated upon in the writ petition itself, since it does not require consideration of any disputed questions of facts.

9. Upon perusal of government order dated 7th April 2020, it is evident that paragraph 2 (1) & (3) indicates conditions under which compensation can be granted under the aforesaid scheme. The stipulation clearly indicated is that such compensation can be granted only in case the deceased had been directed to perform duties with regard to COVID patients or patients who were under quarantine due to the aforesaid disease.

10. It is the specific case of opposite parties that since husband of petitioner was never deputed for such duties, he would not be covered by government order and therefore relief as sought cannot be granted to petitioner.

11. Although the aforesaid aspect is evident from the record that the petitioner's husband was not deputed for COVID duties but the aspect of grant of such benefits has clearly been indicated in judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in the case of Sangeeta Wahi (supra) in the following manner:- "8. Covid-19 Pandemic struck the country in March, 2020. Lakhs of persons lost their lives in the Pandemic. Police officials, healthcare workers, Doctors, Paramedics, etc. were braving the Pandemic and were in the line of duty to provide assistance to persons who fell victims to the life taking virus. Concerns had been raised regarding the country's healthcare system and its capacity to cope with the massive outbreak. Doctors, nurses, paramedical staff, including security staff in various hospitals, were working day and night to streamline the patients to ensure that the patients are screened at the earliest and are quarantined so that the virus does not spread. Persons who were affected by any fever were in a state of panic and not knowing what is to be done, they were rushing to hospitals not knowing where to go and whom to meet. People were crowding OPDs and the causality in the hospital to get themselves screened. At this juncture, it was these security guards, paramedical staff, who not only to ensured the safety of the hospitals but were also acting as guides by directing the patients to approach the correct centre. It, therefore, cannot be said that the security guards who were posted at various places were not in direct contact of Covid-19 patients. It is well known that Covid-19 virus spread through air and any patient who was coming to the hospital could have been infected by the virus, whether he/she was symptomatic or not. The patients got in touch with many service providers, be it security guards, nurses, paramedical staff, who might or might not have been posted in the Covid-19 ward. The Central Government, therefore, cannot take such a narrow approach that only such persons who were posted in the Covid-19 ward or 4 WRIA No. 11972 of 2025 centre only will be covered by the "Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance scheme for health workers fighting COVID-19". The Scheme was actually brought out as a measure to benefit the family members of persons who became martyrs in the line of duty while protecting thousands of persons affected by Covid-19 Pandemic. Taking such a narrow view actually goes against the spirit of the Scheme which was meant to provide immediate relief to persons who were tackling the situation and were protecting the lives of thousands of patients. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that any person having mildest of the symptoms of Covid-19 was getting himself/herself tested. Poor people who could not afford private testing centres were rushing to the Government hospitals. A normal person would never know that there is a special Covid- 19 ward and his normal reaction would be to approach either the OPD desk or the casualty of the hospital to meet the Doctor. At that point of time, to streamline the queue, the services of the security guards were availed. The security guards were also directing the people to the Departments where the patients have to approach in order to get themselves treated. It, therefore, cannot be said that the late husband of the Petitioner herein, who died of Covid-19 which he may have contracted in the Hospital, was not in direct contact with the Covid-19 patients.

9. The Scheme has been brought out as a social welfare scheme and application of such schemes are not to be put in Procrustean beds or shrunk to Liliputian dimensions. Welfare Schemes must necessarily receive a broad interpretation. Where Scheme is designed to give relief, the Court should not be inclined to make etymological excursions [refer:Workmen v. American Express International Banking Corpn., (1985) 4 SCC 71].

10. The Apex Court in Regl. Provident Fund Commr. v. Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd., (2012) 2 SCC 489, has observed as under: "24. If we look at the modern legislative trend we will discern that there is a large volume of legislation enacted with the purpose of introducing social reform by improving the conditions of certain class of persons who might not have been fairly treated in the past. These statutes are normally called remedial statutes or social welfare legislation, whereas penal statutes are sometime enacted providing for penalties for disobedience of laws making those who disobey, liable to imprisonment, fine, forfeiture or other penalty.

25. The normal canon of interpretation is that a remedial statute receives liberal construction whereas a penal statute calls for strict construction. In the cases of remedial statutes, if there is any doubt, the same is resolved in favour of the class of persons for whose benefit the statute is enacted, but in cases of penal statutes if there is any doubt the same is normally resolved in favour of the alleged offender. 26. It is no doubt true that the said Act effectuates the economic message of the Constitution as articulated in the directive principles of State policy. Under the directive principles the State has the obligation for securing just and humane conditions of work which includes a living wage and decent standard of life. The said Act obviously seeks to promote those goals. Therefore, the interpretation of the said 5 WRIA No. 11972 of 2025 Act must not only be liberal but it must be informed by the values of the directive principles. Therefore, an awareness of the social perspective of the Act must guide the interpretative process of the legislative device."

11. In view of the above, the narrow and pedantic stand taken by the Central Government cannot be accepted and the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of "Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance scheme for health workers fighting COVID-19"

12. The aforesaid reasoning has thereafter been followed by Division Bench of this court in the case of Sadhana Sahu (supra) in the following manner:- "7. Keeping in view the above judgment, we are of the view that the present case is very much covered by 'Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package : Insurance Scheme for Health Workers Fighting COVID-19' as the petitioner's husband was a Ward Boy working in the O.P.D. that was just opposite the Covid Section. The pedantic view taken by the authorities is without application of mind that too with narrow interpretation of the said Scheme. Such an interpretation would be wholly contrary to the intention of the said Scheme."

13. It is thus evident that although government order dated 7th April 2020 has restricted the grant of benefit of aforesaid scheme but the two judgments indicated herein above have taken a wider view of the problems which were being faced by this country due to COVID 19 pandemic and effect it had on health workers and persons who came in contact with the patients due to duties performed by them in various hospitals and community health centers. The benefit has thereafter been granted despite the fact that such persons were not specifically deputed for such duties.

14. This court is in respectful agreement with the aforesaid judgments particularly in view of beneficial nature of the scheme which has been issued by Central Government with the notification dated 1st June 2021 also indicating the purpose of the aforesaid scheme to provide safety to front-line health care providers as being in top priority of the Central Government.

15. In view of discussion made herein above, the impugned order dated 21st December 2023 is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari. Further a writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the concerned authority to ensure payment and benefit to petitioner of the aforesaid scheme within a period of six weeks from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the concerned authority. 6 WRIA No. 11972 of 2025

16. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 27, 2025 prabhat (Manish Mathur,J.) PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Mr. Hari Prasad Gupta learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for opposite parties 1 to 4. Despite revision of the list, no one has put in an appearance on behalf of opposite party No.5 although the name of Mr. Bhanu Prakash Dubey has been printed in the cause list. The petition therefore is being decided in the absence of learned counsel for opposite party No.5.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 21st December 2023 whereby petitioner's application for the grant of benefit of the 'Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance Scheme for Health Workers Fighting COVID-19' has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that her husband late Dr. Rajendra Kumar being a Pediatrician was re-employed and posted at Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee (Civil) Hospital, Lucknow and while on duty fell ill on 3rd June 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequently passed away on 2nd July 2022. It is submitted that the medical certificate issued by King Georges Medical University clearly indicates death having occurred due to COVID pandemic. He has submitted that however by means of impugned order, the application has been rejected only on the ground that the claim was preferred beyond the cut-off date of 31st July 2023. Learned counsel has thereafter adverted to paragraph 5 of the short counter affidavit dated Ist November 2025 filed by Director of the Civil Hospital to advert that the opposite parties clearly admit the fact that the petitioner's first application dated 24th August 2022 was submitted before the deadline 2 WRIA No. 11972 of 2025 indicated in the scheme. It is therefore submitted that the basic premise of rejection was baseless.

4. Learned State counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and has adverted to the government order dated 7th April 2020, which is the scheme prescribing compensation in cases of demise of government employees or persons engaged for such performance who passed away and are covered by the aforesaid scheme. It is submitted that paragraph 2 (1) & (3) clearly indicates conditions whereby only the compensation can be awarded. It is therefore submitted that it is only in case where the government hospital or institution concerned and the deceased have been particularly nominated or directed for the purposes of treatment of COVID patients that the scheme would have application. It is submitted that in the present case since neither the hospital nor the deceased were nominated or directed for treatment of COVID patients, petitioner would not come within purview of government order dated 7th April 2020 and therefore even otherwise, the benefit as claimed cannot be granted to petitioner.

5. In response thereto learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Division Bench of this court in the case of Sadhana Sahu versus Union of India and others, 2024 SCC Online All 4907 to submit that the aforesaid provisions of the government order have already been watered down in view of beneficial nature of the provision. It is submitted that said judgment in turn places reliance on judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in the case of Sangeeta Wahi versus Union of India, 2023 SCC Online Del 6808.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that impugned order has been passed rejecting petitioner's application for compensation in terms of scheme only on the ground that application was submitted beyond the cut off date of 31st July 2023.

7. The aforesaid ground has clearly been denied in paragraph 5 of counter affidavit itself, which admits that first application of petitioner under the scheme was, in fact, preferred on 24th August 2022 which was before the deadline of 31st July 2023.

8. Nonetheless, since additional grounds have been taken in counter affidavit 3 WRIA No. 11972 of 2025 pertaining to eligibility of petitioner for grant of benefit, same is being adjudicated upon in the writ petition itself, since it does not require consideration of any disputed questions of facts.

9. Upon perusal of government order dated 7th April 2020, it is evident that paragraph 2 (1) & (3) indicates conditions under which compensation can be granted under the aforesaid scheme. The stipulation clearly indicated is that such compensation can be granted only in case the deceased had been directed to perform duties with regard to COVID patients or patients who were under quarantine due to the aforesaid disease.

10. It is the specific case of opposite parties that since husband of petitioner was never deputed for such duties, he would not be covered by government order and therefore relief as sought cannot be granted to petitioner.

11. Although the aforesaid aspect is evident from the record that the petitioner's husband was not deputed for COVID duties but the aspect of grant of such benefits has clearly been indicated in judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in the case of Sangeeta Wahi (supra) in the following manner:- "8. Covid-19 Pandemic struck the country in March, 2020. Lakhs of persons lost their lives in the Pandemic. Police officials, healthcare workers, Doctors, Paramedics, etc. were braving the Pandemic and were in the line of duty to provide assistance to persons who fell victims to the life taking virus. Concerns had been raised regarding the country's healthcare system and its capacity to cope with the massive outbreak. Doctors, nurses, paramedical staff, including security staff in various hospitals, were working day and night to streamline the patients to ensure that the patients are screened at the earliest and are quarantined so that the virus does not spread. Persons who were affected by any fever were in a state of panic and not knowing what is to be done, they were rushing to hospitals not knowing where to go and whom to meet. People were crowding OPDs and the causality in the hospital to get themselves screened. At this juncture, it was these security guards, paramedical staff, who not only to ensured the safety of the hospitals but were also acting as guides by directing the patients to approach the correct centre. It, therefore, cannot be said that the security guards who were posted at various places were not in direct contact of Covid-19 patients. It is well known that Covid-19 virus spread through air and any patient who was coming to the hospital could have been infected by the virus, whether he/she was symptomatic or not. The patients got in touch with many service providers, be it security guards, nurses, paramedical staff, who might or might not have been posted in the Covid-19 ward. The Central Government, therefore, cannot take such a narrow approach that only such persons who were posted in the Covid-19 ward or 4 WRIA No. 11972 of 2025 centre only will be covered by the "Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance scheme for health workers fighting COVID-19". The Scheme was actually brought out as a measure to benefit the family members of persons who became martyrs in the line of duty while protecting thousands of persons affected by Covid-19 Pandemic. Taking such a narrow view actually goes against the spirit of the Scheme which was meant to provide immediate relief to persons who were tackling the situation and were protecting the lives of thousands of patients. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that any person having mildest of the symptoms of Covid-19 was getting himself/herself tested. Poor people who could not afford private testing centres were rushing to the Government hospitals. A normal person would never know that there is a special Covid- 19 ward and his normal reaction would be to approach either the OPD desk or the casualty of the hospital to meet the Doctor. At that point of time, to streamline the queue, the services of the security guards were availed. The security guards were also directing the people to the Departments where the patients have to approach in order to get themselves treated. It, therefore, cannot be said that the late husband of the Petitioner herein, who died of Covid-19 which he may have contracted in the Hospital, was not in direct contact with the Covid-19 patients.

9. The Scheme has been brought out as a social welfare scheme and application of such schemes are not to be put in Procrustean beds or shrunk to Liliputian dimensions. Welfare Schemes must necessarily receive a broad interpretation. Where Scheme is designed to give relief, the Court should not be inclined to make etymological excursions [refer:Workmen v. American Express International Banking Corpn., (1985) 4 SCC 71].

10. The Apex Court in Regl. Provident Fund Commr. v. Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd., (2012) 2 SCC 489, has observed as under: "24. If we look at the modern legislative trend we will discern that there is a large volume of legislation enacted with the purpose of introducing social reform by improving the conditions of certain class of persons who might not have been fairly treated in the past. These statutes are normally called remedial statutes or social welfare legislation, whereas penal statutes are sometime enacted providing for penalties for disobedience of laws making those who disobey, liable to imprisonment, fine, forfeiture or other penalty.

25. The normal canon of interpretation is that a remedial statute receives liberal construction whereas a penal statute calls for strict construction. In the cases of remedial statutes, if there is any doubt, the same is resolved in favour of the class of persons for whose benefit the statute is enacted, but in cases of penal statutes if there is any doubt the same is normally resolved in favour of the alleged offender. 26. It is no doubt true that the said Act effectuates the economic message of the Constitution as articulated in the directive principles of State policy. Under the directive principles the State has the obligation for securing just and humane conditions of work which includes a living wage and decent standard of life. The said Act obviously seeks to promote those goals. Therefore, the interpretation of the said 5 WRIA No. 11972 of 2025 Act must not only be liberal but it must be informed by the values of the directive principles. Therefore, an awareness of the social perspective of the Act must guide the interpretative process of the legislative device."

11. In view of the above, the narrow and pedantic stand taken by the Central Government cannot be accepted and the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of "Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance scheme for health workers fighting COVID-19"

12. The aforesaid reasoning has thereafter been followed by Division Bench of this court in the case of Sadhana Sahu (supra) in the following manner:- "7. Keeping in view the above judgment, we are of the view that the present case is very much covered by 'Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package : Insurance Scheme for Health Workers Fighting COVID-19' as the petitioner's husband was a Ward Boy working in the O.P.D. that was just opposite the Covid Section. The pedantic view taken by the authorities is without application of mind that too with narrow interpretation of the said Scheme. Such an interpretation would be wholly contrary to the intention of the said Scheme."

13. It is thus evident that although government order dated 7th April 2020 has restricted the grant of benefit of aforesaid scheme but the two judgments indicated herein above have taken a wider view of the problems which were being faced by this country due to COVID 19 pandemic and effect it had on health workers and persons who came in contact with the patients due to duties performed by them in various hospitals and community health centers. The benefit has thereafter been granted despite the fact that such persons were not specifically deputed for such duties.

14. This court is in respectful agreement with the aforesaid judgments particularly in view of beneficial nature of the scheme which has been issued by Central Government with the notification dated 1st June 2021 also indicating the purpose of the aforesaid scheme to provide safety to front-line health care providers as being in top priority of the Central Government.

15. In view of discussion made herein above, the impugned order dated 21st December 2023 is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari. Further a writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the concerned authority to ensure payment and benefit to petitioner of the aforesaid scheme within a period of six weeks from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the concerned authority. 6 WRIA No. 11972 of 2025

16. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 27, 2025 prabhat (Manish Mathur,J.) PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench