Bombay High Court Orders MSRTC To Pay ₹50L Compensation To Widow Of Deceased Traffic Supervisor Who Died Due To COVID
The Court said that even if the deceased was deputed to control the traffic, he was exposed to the same risk.
The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) to pay ₹50 lakh in compensation to the widow of a traffic supervisor who died of COVID-19 in 2021.
The Court set aside the corporation's decision denying the full ex gratia amount, ruling that the deceased's role in supervising traffic at the Wadala depot exposed him to the same risks as drivers and conductors.
The court criticized the MSRTC’s "narrow" and "hyper-technical" interpretation of its own circulars, emphasizing that schemes formulated during the pandemic must be applied broadly to honour those who performed essential duties at the risk of their lives.
The Division Bench of Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice SM Modak observed, “There is no dispute that the deceased died due to COVID. We are inclined to take a view that the husband of the petitioner was involved in supervising the traffic at Wadala depot and as such, will fall within the parameters of the Circular dated 1st June 2020 and as extended vide Circular dated 30th September 2021. Even if the deceased was deputed to control the traffic, it does not mean that he was supposed to do the work by sitting in the Office. In discharge of his duty, the deceased was supposed to interact and came in contact with the drivers and conductors who were actually involved in driving the buses thereby exposing him to the same risk as the drivers and conductors. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are inclined to take a view so as to grant relief to the petitioner.”
Advocate Akhil Kupade appeared for the Petitioner, while Assistant Government Pleader R.A. Salunkhe and Advocate Nitesh Bhutekar appeared for the Respondents.
A writ petition was filed by the wife of the deceased to claim compensation of Rs. 50,00,000 from the Maharashtra State Road Transport (‘MSRTC’) on account of the death of her husband, who was an employee of the MSRTC and died due to COVID pneumonia. The petitioner being the wife claimed compensation from MSRTC Ltd. However, it was rejected for the reason “deceased Bapu Jagtap was not assigned essential services and he was not the driver involved in the interstate transport.”
The petitioner heavily relied upon a circular dated June 1, 2020, issued by MSRTC Ltd., and pleaded that the benefit extended to MSRTC employees. The petitioner also contended that the wording of the circular could not be strictly construed to mean only employees performing driving jobs.
Respondents No. 1 to 3 opposed the prayer through an Affidavit-in-Reply on the grounds that the petitioner’s husband did not fulfil the criteria laid down in the circular. They further contended that the case fell within the purview of a different circular (No. 32 of 2021), which provided for a lower compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 for employees who died of COVID but were ineligible for the higher amount.
The petitioner’s wife wrote several letters to the Divisional Controller, but MSRTC rejected the request for the Rs. 50,00,000 compensation. The court examined various Government Resolutions (GRs) and circulars. It noted that the State Government had extended a scheme providing Rs. 50,00,000 in ex-gratia assistance to all local bodies and Public Sector Undertakings, including MSRTC, for employees who died while performing duties during the pandemic.
The MSRTC argued that the deceased was ineligible because he was not a driver or conductor. However, the court considered whether the circular should be interpreted literally or broadly. It referenced several previous judgments where courts rejected "hyper-technical" approaches by authorities. In those cases, the courts held that benevolent schemes should not be given narrow meanings and that the date of contracting the infection, rather than the date of death, was the material factor.
“We are constrained to hold that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have taken a narrow view of the Circular. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 have forgotten the precarious situation prevailing during COVID period when no one was ready to go out of house for discharging their duties. The Court can take a judicial notice that the life of general public came to a standstill and the public services including transport were kept open for limited services. It was part of duty of the husband of the petitioner to attend the job which he has done at the risk of his life”, the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and asked MSRTC to pay the remaining amount to the Petitioner.
Cause Title: Smt. Sunita Bapu Jagtap v. The Chairman, Maharashtra State Road Transport and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:9734-DB]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Akhil Kupade, Advocate S.R. Jadhav.
Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader R.A. Salunkhe, Advocate Nitesh Bhutekar, Advocate Sejal Singh, Advocate Aaditya Mahamiya, Advocate Prathamesh Mandlik.