The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has clarified that government employees assigned to Covid-19 vaccination centres are eligible for compensation under the Mukhya Mantri Covid 19 Yodha Kalyan Yojana, provided their duties fall within the scope of Clause 3.3 of the policy. This judgment reinforces the principle that administrative decisions must align with the express terms of welfare schemes and cannot be arbitrarily narrowed by officials.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Smt. Sheela Sharma, sought compensation under the Mukhya Mantri Covid 19 Yodha Kalyan Yojana after the death of her husband, late Shri Brijesh Narayan Sharma, who succumbed to Covid-19 while performing duties at a Primary Health Centre (PHC) designated as a vaccination centre during the pandemic. The State authorities rejected her claim solely on the basis of Clause 3.1 of the policy, ignoring the broader eligibility criteria under Clause 3.3.
Key Facts
- The deceased, Shri Brijesh Narayan Sharma, was employed as Assistant Grade III in the Department of Water Resources, Government of Madhya Pradesh.
- On 15.04.2021, he was assigned duties at a Covid-19 vaccination centre in Lashkar by the SDO (Revenue), Lashkar, a competent authority under the policy.
- He contracted Covid-19 while discharging these duties and died on 28.05.2021.
- A five-member committee, comprising the Collector, Gwalior; Chief Medical and Health Officer; Superintendent of Police; Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat; and Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, unanimously recommended compensation on 10.07.2021 (Annexure P/6).
- The State, through Order dated 08.09.2023 (Annexure P/1), rejected the claim, stating the deceased did not qualify under Clause 3.1 of the policy.
- The petitioner filed representations on 15.08.2021 and 20.12.2021, both of which remained unaddressed.
Procedural History
- 28.05.2021: Death of Shri Brijesh Narayan Sharma.
- 10.07.2021: Committee recommends compensation under the scheme.
- 08.09.2023: Respondent No.1 rejects claim citing Clause 3.1.
- 12.10.2023: Writ Petition No. 5570 of 2024 filed before the High Court at Gwalior.
- 16.10.2024: Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mamta Mundra v. Relief Commissioner (WP No. 31165/2024) held that vaccination centre workers are eligible under Clause 3.3.
- 27.01.2026: Review Petition No. 836/2025 against Mamta Mundra dismissed by the Indore Bench.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that her husband’s assignment to a vaccination centre by the SDO (Revenue) squarely brought him within Clause 3.3 of the policy, which explicitly includes employees of "other departments" assigned Covid duties. She relied on the Mamta Mundra judgment, which held that even personnel assigned to vaccination centres are eligible, and emphasized that the committee’s unanimous recommendation was ignored.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that Clause 3.1 limits eligibility to those with direct contact with Covid patients, and that vaccination centre duties did not constitute such contact. It distinguished Mamta Mundra on the ground that the deceased there was a BLO who visited homes, whereas the petitioner’s husband worked at a fixed centre.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 08.09.2023, direction to implement the compensation, extension of benefits within a specified period, and costs.
The Legal Issue
Whether an employee of a government department, assigned by a competent authority to a Covid-19 vaccination centre, qualifies for compensation under Clause 3.3 of the Mukhya Mantri Covid 19 Yodha Kalyan Yojana, despite not having direct patient contact?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Clause 3.3 of the policy dated 17.04.2020 and its revised version dated 27.05.2021, which explicitly include employees of "other departments" assigned Covid duties. He cited Mamta Mundra v. Relief Commissioner (WP No. 31165/2024), where this Court’s Indore Bench held that vaccination centre workers are covered under Clause 3.3, and noted that the State’s review petition against that order was dismissed on 27.01.2026. He emphasized that the committee’s findings, based on medical and administrative evidence, were disregarded without reason.
For the Respondent/State
The State’s counsel argued that Clause 3.1 requires direct exposure to Covid patients, which was absent in this case. He contended that the deceased’s role was logistical, not clinical, and that Mamta Mundra was distinguishable because the deceased there was a BLO engaged in door-to-door mobilization. He further submitted that the policy’s intent was to reward frontline medical and paramedical staff.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the policy text and found that Clause 3.3 explicitly extends eligibility to employees of "other departments" assigned Covid duties by competent authorities. The deceased’s assignment by the SDO (Revenue) was undisputed and lawful. The Court noted that the policy does not distinguish between vaccination centres and patient care units for eligibility purposes under Clause 3.3.
"The duties which were assigned to the husband of the petitioner, led him to come in contact with the Covid patients, and he was also required to visit the various residences of the area to encourage the residents for vaccination. In such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the husband of the petitioner has died on account of Covid, which he contracted while performing his duties..."
The Court observed that the State’s rejection order dated 08.09.2023 failed to address the committee’s recommendation or the applicability of Clause 3.3. It held that the State’s reliance on Clause 3.1 alone was legally unsustainable, particularly in light of the binding precedent in Mamta Mundra. The Court emphasized that administrative discretion must be exercised in consonance with the policy’s express terms and not through selective interpretation.
The Court further noted that the policy’s objective was to recognize sacrifice during the pandemic, and narrowing eligibility contrary to its text would defeat its humanitarian purpose.
The Verdict
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 08.09.2023 is quashed. The matter is remitted to Respondent No.1 for fresh consideration of the claim, taking into account the committee’s recommendation dated 10.07.2021, Clause 3.3 of the policy dated 17.04.2020 and 27.05.2021, and the judgment in Mamta Mundra. Respondent No.1 shall pass a fresh order within 90 days of production of the certified copy of this order. If the claim is upheld, the monetary benefit shall be paid within 60 days thereafter. The petitioner shall be entitled to bank interest at the applicable rate from the date of eligibility until payment.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Eligibility Is Defined by Assignment, Not Job Title
- Practitioners must argue that eligibility under welfare schemes is determined by the nature of duties assigned, not the employee’s original department or designation.
- Any government employee assigned Covid duties by a competent authority - including water resources, education, or transport departments - may qualify under Clause 3.3.
Policy Interpretation Must Be Broad and Humanitarian
- Administrative authorities cannot narrow eligibility by importing unstated conditions (e.g., direct patient contact) not found in the policy text.
- Committee recommendations, especially those based on medical and factual findings, must be considered and addressed in writing.
Precedent Binding Across Benches
- Orders from coordinate benches on identical policy provisions are binding unless overruled by a larger bench.
- Review petitions dismissed on merits constitute affirmance of the original judgment and must be treated as authoritative.
Documentation Is Critical
- Petitioners must retain proof of assignment (e.g., official orders, duty rosters) and committee recommendations.
- Failure to document assignment or ignore committee findings renders rejection orders legally vulnerable.
