Bombay High Court Rules ₹50 Lakh COVID-19 Benefit Cannot Be Denied Citing Arbitrary Cut-Off Date; Orders Relief For Deceased Clerk’s Family

The Court ruled that denying benefits to "COVID Warriors" based on a rigid temporal limit—when the infection was contracted during active duty—is contrary to the values of justice, fairness, and public conscience.

​The Division Bench of Justice Madhav J Jamdar and Justice Pravin S. Patil observed, “In this particular case, admittedly, deceased Santosh was performing his duty till 31st May 2021. He was admitted in the hospital on 14th June 2021 and detected with covid-19 positive. Thus, his case is squarely covered by Government Resolution dated 29th May 2020 read with Government Resolutions dated 14th October 2020 and 25th April 2022…Apart from this aspect, it is relevant to note that even Government Resolution dated 25th April 2022 provides that benefit should be given to the government employees and other persons as set out in such GR whose death took place on or before 30th June 2021. Deceased Santosh has admittedly passed away on 3rd July 2021.”

Advocate Tejpal Ingale appeared for the Petitioners, while AGP T. J. Kapre appeared for the Respondents.

The petitioners, appearing as the legal heirs and representatives of the late Santosh Vishnu Shinde, preferred the Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing Respondents to extend the benefit of the Ex-gratia/Insurance Cover cum Compensation in the sum of ₹50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) on the grounds that the deceased contracted COVID-19 while discharging his official duties, leading to his demise on 03.07.2021.

Furthermore, the petitioners prayed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records and proceedings of the case and, after assessing the legality of the same, to quash and set aside the impugned Order/Communication passed by Respondent No. 3 (Executive Officer, Law and Justice Department, Government of Maharashtra), effectively rejected the petitioners’ entitlement to the said compensation.

The Petitioners submitted that the legal heirs of the deceased, Santosh Vishnu Shinde, were rightfully entitled to the ex-gratia benefits stipulated under the Government Resolutions. It was stated that the deceased was serving as a Junior Clerk at the Civil Court in Chiplun and was on active duty until 31st May 2021. It was during this period that he fell ill, subsequently testing positive for COVID-19 on 14th June 2021. Despite being shifted to Noble Hospital in Pune for advanced care, he succumbed to the infection on 3rd July 2021

Conversely, the State opposed the petition, contending that the claim is technically barred by the temporal limits set by the state. It was argued that the Government Resolution explicitly restricts the insurance cover to those government employees whose demise occurred on or before the cut-off date of 30th June 2021. Since the death of Santosh Vishnu Shinde took place on 3rd July 2021—three days after the expiration of the specified period—the State maintained that the petitioners are ineligible for the ₹50,00,000/- compensation.

The Court noted that the initial Government Resolution (GR) dated May 29, 2020, established a specific welfare criterion: the insurance benefit is applicable if the employee was on duty within 14 days prior to their hospitalization or death. Although subsequent resolutions extended the scheme’s duration, the GR dated April 25, 2022, introduced a cut-off date of June 30, 2021, for the occurrence of death.

It said, “Thus, it is clear that what the policy of State Government requires is that beneit is to be given to the government employees and the employees covered by said Government Resolutions who have passed away due to covid-19 on or before 30th June 2021. In this context, it is required to be noted that the purpose for which this policy was brought into force, which can be discerned from Clause (3) of Government Resolution dated 29th May 2020. It is recorded that in spite of outbreak of covid-19 pandemic, various government employees including the District Administration, Police, Homeguard, Anganwadi Karmachari, etc., were performing their duties carrying risk to their lives. The said policy further records that Government has decided to support the families of government employees who lost their lives during the covid-19 pandemic.”

The Court determined that the rigid cut-off date of June 30, 2021, was inconsistent with the foundational 14-day "on-duty" rule established in the original 2020 policy. The Court emphasized that the primary intent of these resolutions was to provide a safety net for families of workers who risked their lives during the pandemic.

“It is very relevant to note that the criteria which is set out in Government Resolution dated 29^th May 2020 is totally diferent than the the criteria which is set out in Government Resolution dated 25th April 2022. It is very clear that the Government Resolution dated 29th May 2020 sets out the criteria and subsequent Government Resolutions extend the period of the same”, it added.

The Bench held that to deny relief simply because a patient—who contracted the virus and was hospitalized before the deadline—passed away a few days after the cut-off would be contrary to justice, fairness, and public conscience.

Consequently, the Court ruled that the June 30 deadline could not be regarded as sacrosanct in this context. The Court quashed the communication that had rejected the claim and directed the

Cause Title: Smt. Sanika Santosh Shinde and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Others. [Neutral Citation: 2026: BHC-KOL:1977-DB]

Appearances:

Petitioners: Advocate Tejpal Ingale and Vrunali Vilankar

Respondents: AGP TJ Kapre

Click here to read/download the Judgment