Bombay High Court Orders Compassionate Appointment & Compensation For Son Of BEST Conductor Who Died Of COVID-19

The Petitioner’s father, a 27-year veteran of BEST, died in June 2020 after exhibiting classic COVID-19 symptoms while on duty. Although the Respondents argued that the absence of an RTPCR test invalidated the claim, the Court observed that requiring "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" in such cases would be "inhuman".

The Division Bench of Justice RI Chagla and Justice Advait M Sethna observed, “This Court had in the said decision held that the standard of proof applicable in a case of this nature, cannot be “proof beyond reasonable doubt” but the “preponderance of probability” tending to draw an inference that the fact of death of the Petitioner’s father due to Covid 19 must be more probable. It was held that merely because there was no RTPCR Report or adequate medical documentation could not have afforded a ground to refuse the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 9th May 2020. It would indeed be inhuman on the part of the Court to refrain from interfering in the stated case and fold their hands to decline reliefs to the heirs of the Petitioner’s father, who died while answering the call of duty.”

Advocate Madhavi Tavanandi appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocates Vishal Talsania and Pushpa Yadav appeared for the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

A Writ Petition was filed to challenge and cancel the decision issued by Respondent No. 1 (BEST). The Petitioner sought directions to compel the Respondents to grant him employment on compassionate grounds as per Administrative Order No. 407 of 2020. Additionally, he sought the release of ex-gratia compensation as per the Departmental Notification dated 10th June 2020.

The Petitioner’s father was a permanent employee serving as a Bus Conductor with the Brihanmumbai Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST). Following the government’s declaration of COVID-19 as a pandemic and the subsequent lockdown on 23rd March 2020, the Petitioner’s father continued to report for duty regularly as an essential service provider.

On 4th June 2020, while on active duty, the Petitioner’s father complained of extreme weakness and body ache. He was examined by a doctor who, observing COVID-19 symptoms, prescribed medication. Due to his deteriorating condition, he was admitted to Seven Hills Hospital that same afternoon as a suspected COVID-19 case. On 6th June 2020, the Petitioner’s father suffered a fatal heart attack (Myocardial Infarction). The official Medical Certificate of Cause of Death listed the provisional causes as both a heart attack and being a suspected case of COVID-19. No formal post-mortem was conducted due to the prevailing pandemic protocols, and the body was cremated by the BMC without being handed over to the family.

In June and July 2020, the Petitioner and his mother submitted formal applications to BEST requesting compassionate appointment for the Petitioner as a Clerk, noting that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family. After a delay of over a year, Respondent No. 1 rejected the application on 23rd November 2021. The rejection was based on the grounds that no RTPCR test was conducted and no detailed medical treatment records were available to prove conclusively that the death was caused by COVID-19. Aggrieved by this denial of employment and compensation, the Petitioner approached the High Court.

Contention of the Parties

The Petitioner contended that his father contracted COVID-19 while performing his duties as a Bus Conductor. The Counsel pointed out that the deceased suffered from high fever, breathing difficulties, a dry cough, and body ache before his death. The Petitioner highlighted that the hospital recorded a dangerously low oxygen level (SpO2) of 73% and listed COVID-19 as an antecedent cause of death. The Petitioner argued that the case required a "preponderance of probability" rather than "proof beyond reasonable doubt" to establish the cause of death.

The Respondents stated that no RTPCR test was conducted on the deceased to confirm a COVID-19 infection. The Respondents argued that the BMC Dean’s Committee found the deceased's X-ray reports to be completely normal. The Respondents maintained that the medical certificate listed the cause of death as a heart attack and only labeled the deceased as a "suspected" COVID-19 case. The Respondents contended that the Petitioner failed to provide the necessary medical documents required under the official government circulars. The Respondents argued that the decision to deny the benefits was justified because there was no conclusive evidence of death due to COVID-19.

Observations of the Court

The Court held, “In the present case, the cause of death certificate from Seven Hills Hospital clearly shows the Petitioner’s cause of death as that of Covid as well as Myocardial Infarction. The examination of the Petitioner’s father on 4th June 2020 as borne out from the Admission Form of Seven Hills Hospital shows classic symptoms of Covid 19, viz. Dry Cough; Breathing Difficulty; High Grade Fever; Body Ache; Loose Motion, this coupled with the Petitioner’s father having Comorbidities of Diabetes and Hypertension. It thus can be concluded on “preponderance of probability” that the cause of death of the Petitioner’s father being that of Covid-19.”

It added that this is the standard of proof applicable in a case of this nature. Further, in the present case, there was no RTPCR Report and/or RTPCR Test having been conducted on the Petitioner’s father, and the mere fact of there being no RTPCR Report or adequate medical documentation could not have afforded a ground to refuse the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 29th May 2020.

Conclusion

The Court viewed that the Petitioner was able to make out a strong case for the grant of relief sought in the Petition. The Petitioner’s father has been in service with the Respondent No. 1 – BEST for over a period of 27 years as a Bus Conductor and was the sole earning member in the family. Respondent No. 1 – BEST was required to grant the application of the Petitioner on compassionate grounds under Administrative Order No. 407 of 2020 dated 8th May 2020, as well as grant ex gratia compensation as per Notification dated 10th June 2020, in view of the fact of the death of the Petitioner’s father being due to Covid-19.

Accordingly, the Petition was allowed, the impugned communication was set aside, and Respondent No. 2 was directed to give compassionate appointment to the Petitioner along with Rs. 50,000/- as ex gratia compensation.

Cause Title: Subodh Nayan Lakeshri v. General Manager BrihanMumbai Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking & Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:7223-DB]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocates Madhavi Tavanandi, Vivek Thakare, Jagruti Nimbalkar and Suraj Chakor

Respondents: Advocates Vishal Talsania, Akshay Naik, Sagar Shetty, Pushpa Yadav, Pratik Garde, Komal Punjab

Click here to read/download the Judgment