The Bombay High Court has granted relief to the husband of a deceased woman who died of COVID while working as a data entry operator at a Healthcare Centre. The High Court held that discarding a claim on the ground that the deceased employee was merely an outsourced contractual employee would defeat the very purpose of the scheme meant for the covid fighters who discharged their duties even during the pandemic period involving covid-related duties.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking the benefit of the insurance cover/ ex gratia assistance admissible to the State Government employees and their dependents in the case of death of such employee on account of covid infection during the course of covid related duty.

The Division Bench of Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar and Justice M. S. Karnik held, “We hold that the benevolent scheme formulated under the Government Resolution dated 29th May 2020 and subsequent Government Resolution dated 14th May 2021 cannot be given a narrow meaning anymore. We declare that “it is not the date of death, but the date of contracting Covid-19 infection which is material for grant of insurance coverage under the Government Resolution dated 29th May 2020 read with Government Resolution dated 14th May 2021”.

“Discarding a claim on the ground that deceased employee was merely an outsourced contractual employee would, in our conscious opinion, would defeat the very purpose of the scheme. This is because as a result of the active contribution of such employees in the fight against Covid-19 pandemic, such employee sufers infection of Covid-19 during the course of employment”, it added.

Advocate N. B. Khaire represented the Petitioner, while AGP Tejas J. Kapre represented the Respondent-State.

Factual Background

The Petitioner sought such a benefit on account of the death of his wife. His claim was rejected by the Additional Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Public Health Department, on the ground that the insurance cover/ex gratia assistance scheme was operational till June 30, 2021, only and since his wife died on July 4, 2021, the insurance cover benefit was not admissible to the Petitioner.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, observed that the scheme regarding insurance cover/ex gratia assistance to the State Government employees was introduced by the Government of Maharashtra, Finance Department vide Government Resolution dated May 29, 2020. It was noticed that the scheme was extended till June 30, 2021, vide subsequent Government Resolution dated May 14, 2021.

The Bench stated, “It is pertinent to note that the benefit of the scheme was for those covid fighters who discharged their duties even during covid pandemic period involving covid related duties. In fact, the contribution of such covid fighters cannot be measured in terms of money. However, to give some solace to the family members of such covid fighters who lost their lives on account of having been infected by covid-19 while on duty, this benevolent scheme was introduced by the Government of Maharashtra.”

The Bench found that the petitioner’s wife was working as a data entry operator at Primary Healthcare Centre, Kadgaon, Taluka Gadhinglaj, District Kolhapur, on a contractual basis. She was discharging her duties at the said Primary Healthcare Centre under the project National Rural Health Mission, Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur, when the Covid-19 pandemic was in full force. It was noticed that her assistance to her office was nonetheless more than the Covid-19-related duties. “As such, although late Sarita Ramesh Patil expired on 4th July 2021, i.e., after the outer limit fixed for giving benefit of insurance scheme, the fact remains that she suffered Covid-19 infection and was hospitalized much prior to the said cutof date and while discharging her official duties during the pandemic period”, the Bench stated.

The Bench thus held that the case of deceased Sarita Patil would fall within the meaning of “all employees” as given under clause 3(A) of the Government Resolution dated May 29, 2020. The Bench also held that the late Sarita Ramesh Patil, although engaged on a contractual basis by an outsourcing agency, namely, “Arihant Sales and Services”, would be covered by the category of employees mentioned in clause 3(B)(c) of the Government Resolution dated 29th May 2020.

Thus, quashing the impugned communication of the Additional Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Public Health Department, the Bench asked the Respondents to extend the benefit of Government Resolution dated May 29, 2020, and Government Resolution dated May 14, 2021, to the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks.

Cause Title: Ramesh Balu Patil v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-KOL:4408-DB)

Click here to read/download Order



Bombay High CourtJustice Ajit B. KadethankarJustice MS Karnik

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.