The high court has directed the Delhi government to pay ₹1 crore as ex gratia compensation within eight weeks to the widow of a school principal who died after contracting Covid-19 while overseeing vaccination work at his institution.
A bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela on Thursday emphasised that the government’s compensation policy was a welfare-oriented measure intended to benefit those who lost their lives performing essential services during the pandemic.
The widow challenged a single judge’s November 2024 ruling disentitling her from the compensation, saying her husband was not on Covid duty in April 2021. She sought ex gratia compensation under the Delhi government’s May 2020 policy.
She argued her husband’s school was a designated Covid-19 vaccination centre and he was responsible for assigning pandemic-related duties to staff. The plea was rejected in December 2021 on the grounds that she was ineligible under the 2020 policy since her husband died while performing regular duties.
The two-judge bench noted an official letter from the school confirming the man’s deployment in connection with vaccination duties and concluded that he was indeed performing Covid-related responsibilities. It added that he was required to be present to oversee the work of staff under him as the institution’s head. “...medical experts all over the world believe that the coronavirus was mutating and ever evolving into myriad versions of itself, posing the greatest challenges to the best and most fertile medical minds. Thus, a restricted and highly constricted view cannot be taken,” the court said.
{{/usCountry}}The two-judge bench noted an official letter from the school confirming the man’s deployment in connection with vaccination duties and concluded that he was indeed performing Covid-related responsibilities. It added that he was required to be present to oversee the work of staff under him as the institution’s head. “...medical experts all over the world believe that the coronavirus was mutating and ever evolving into myriad versions of itself, posing the greatest challenges to the best and most fertile medical minds. Thus, a restricted and highly constricted view cannot be taken,” the court said.
{{/usCountry}}The court cited the 2020 policy and said it conferred benefits upon a particular class who lost their lives while rendering essential services during the pandemic. “While examining applications under such beneficial policies, a narrow and pedantic view ought to be completely avoided.”