Deceased Frontline Worker’s Family Entitled To Compensation Under PMGKP Even If Hospital Not Requisitioned As COVID Centre: Bombay High Court
The High Court held that rejection of ex gratia compensation under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package on the ground that the hospital was not requisitioned as a COVID-19 treatment centre is contrary to the object of the scheme, where the deceased health worker contracted COVID-19 while on active duty.
The Bombay High Court held that ex gratia compensation under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package cannot be denied on the sole ground that the hospital where the health worker was deployed was not requisitioned as a COVID-19 treatment centre, where it is established that the employee contracted COVID-19 while on duty.
The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging the rejection of a claim for ex-gratia compensation under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package in respect of a frontline health worker who died due to COVID-19 infection while on active duty.
A Bench of Justice R.G. Avachat and Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar, while allowing the petition, observed that the scheme does not impose any requirement that the hospital must be specifically requisitioned as a COVID-19 treatment centre, and that such a narrow interpretation would frustrate the benevolent object of the scheme. The Court observed that “observing and terming the compensation scheme only to meant for such health workers who were working in such hospitals/places which were requisitioned for Covid-19 treatment shall, in our opinion, frustrate the benevolent scheme of compensation itself.”
Background
The petition arose from the rejection of a claim for ex-gratia compensation under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package (PMGKP) in respect of a health worker who was serving as a staff nurse and was deputed to a police hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic.
It was undisputed that the health worker was deployed as a frontline worker during the pandemic and came into contact with suspected COVID-19 patients while on duty. The health worker was later diagnosed with COVID-19 infection and succumbed to the illness within a short period.
The competent authority certified that the death was due to COVID-19 infection and that the health worker was on duty during the fourteen days preceding death. The compensation claim was processed and recommended by district-level and divisional authorities.
However, the claim was rejected by the State Technical and Administrative Committee because the police hospital where the health worker was deployed was not included in the list of hospitals requisitioned as COVID-19 treatment centres.
The petitioner challenged the rejection, contending that the scheme does not require deployment at a requisitioned COVID-19 hospital and that the rejection defeated the object of the scheme.
Court’s Observation
The High Court examined the terms of the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package and the parent order issued by the Union of India. The Court held that the scheme does not impose any condition requiring the hospital to be included in a notified list of COVID-19 treatment centres.
The Court noted that it was undisputed that the deceased was a public health service provider, was deputed during the COVID-19 period, and died due to COVID-19 infection while on duty. The Court observed that certification by the competent authority clearly established that the infection was contracted during active service.
The Court held that limiting the benefit of the scheme only to those working in notified COVID-19 hospitals would be contrary to the comprehensive and benevolent nature of the policy. The Court observed that preliminary treatment centres, including police hospitals where suspected COVID-19 patients were examined, exposed health workers to equal risk.
The Court further held that "the reason rendered by the Joint Director of Health Services in rejecting the claim for Police Hospital, Sangli not being enlisted in the list of requisitioned hospitals, is a foreign to the scheme itself", while further stating that "the scheme does not have such narrow object".
The Bench also relied on previous decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court, emphasising that the date of contracting COVID-19 and duty status are material for the grant of benefits, and that hyper-technical interpretations should not defeat the object of welfare schemes.
The Court held that rejection of the claim lacked a rational basis, imposed conditions not found in the scheme, and amounted to a hostile and unreasonable interpretation that frustrated the object of providing financial protection to families of frontline workers.
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the rejection order.
The Court directed the competent authority to process the claim and grant compensation under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package in respect of the deceased health worker.
The Court directed that the compensation be granted within a period of sixteen weeks from receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Cause Title: Sunil Shankar Mohite v. Union of India & Ors.
Appearances
Petitioner: Dhairyasheel Sutar, Advocate; Shruti Ghodake, Advocate; Rakshita Shinde, Advocate; Onkar Sutar, Advocate; Reshma Adwait, Advocate; Latika Kabad, Advocate
Respondents: Vijay Killedar, Advocate, A.A. Naik, AGP Devendranath Joshi, Advocate