The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that the dependents of a deceased government employee who died due to post-COVID sepsis while serving as a frontline worker are entitled to meaningful consideration for compassionate appointment and associated pensionary benefits. This ruling reinforces the state’s duty under Article 21 to extend humane and equitable relief to families of those who sacrificed their lives in public service.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, legal heirs of the late Kashi Singh, sought relief concerning his long-term service and posthumous benefits. Kashi Singh had been working continuously since 1 June 1990 in an irregular capacity as a daily wage worker under the State Government. Despite performing duties equivalent to a regular government servant, he was never formally regularized. His service was terminated on 25 May 2021 due to voluntary retirement, and he passed away shortly thereafter due to post-COVID sepsis, recognized as a direct consequence of his exposure while serving as a Corona warrior.
Procedural History
- 1990 - 2021: Kashi Singh worked continuously without regularization despite fulfilling the criteria for permanent status.
- 2006: The Supreme Court in Umadevi v. State of Karnataka held that irregular appointments cannot be regularized unless done through lawful process.
- 2016: The State Government issued a circular granting permanent classification to certain irregular workers, including Kashi Singh, based on length of service.
- 2022: Petitioners filed this writ petition under Article 226 seeking regularization, pensionary benefits, medical reimbursement, and compassionate appointment for dependents.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Retrospective fixation of pay from 1 June 2000 as per the Umadevi judgment’s implementation guidelines
- Pension calculated on the basis of 31 years of service under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Act, 1976
- Reimbursement of medical expenses incurred during treatment amounting to ₹8,93,625/- with 18% annual interest
- Compassionate appointment for the widow (Petitioner No.1)
- Lump sum compensation of ₹50 lakh as a special gesture for a deceased Corona warrior
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioners argued that Kashi Singh had served for over 31 years without interruption, performed duties akin to a regular government servant, and was even granted permanent classification under the 2016 circular. His death due to post-COVID sepsis, directly linked to his frontline duties, made his family eligible for compassionate appointment under established state policy. They relied on Mamta Shukla v. State of M.P. to assert that pensionary benefits must be calculated from the date of eligibility, not from the date of application.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that Kashi Singh had already been granted the benefit of permanent classification under the 2016 circular, thereby satisfying the requirements of Umadevi. They conceded that his death was due to post-COVID sepsis but argued that compassionate appointment was discretionary and not a legal entitlement. They further stated that medical reimbursement claims required formal documentation not yet submitted.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the dependents of a deceased government employee who died due to post-COVID sepsis while serving as a frontline worker are entitled to compassionate appointment and retrospective pensionary benefits under Article 21 and existing service law, even if the employee was not formally regularized prior to death.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of Kashi Singh’s service, the state’s own circular of 2016 recognizing his permanent status, and the evolving jurisprudence on compassionate appointment for families of public servants who die in service. It noted that while Umadevi barred automatic regularization, it did not negate the state’s moral and constitutional obligation to provide relief to families of those who served loyally and died in public duty.
"The deceased was not merely a daily wage worker; he was a Corona warrior whose service was integral to the State’s public health response. Denying his family the benefit of compassionate appointment would be a betrayal of the very ethos of public service."
The Court distinguished Umadevi by emphasizing that the judgment addressed unlawful appointments, not the equitable treatment of dependents of those who served faithfully and died in the line of duty. It also referenced its own precedent in Mamta Shukla, which held that pensionary benefits must be calculated from the date the service qualifies for such benefits, not from the date of application.
The Court further held that post-COVID sepsis, as certified on the death certificate, qualifies as a service-related death under the state’s compassionate appointment policy. The state’s obligation under Article 21 extends beyond procedural compliance to include substantive justice for families who have lost their sole breadwinner in service of the public.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court held that compassionate appointment must be considered for the widow and that pensionary benefits must be recalculated from 1 June 2000, with interest. Medical reimbursement shall be processed as per law. The State was directed to decide the application within 120 days.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compassionate Appointment Is Not Discretionary in Service-Related Deaths
- Practitioners must now argue that compassionate appointment is a constitutional obligation under Article 21 when a public servant dies due to service-related illness, especially during public emergencies like the pandemic
- The mere existence of a policy is insufficient; the state must act proactively and within reasonable timelines
- Death due to post-COVID complications qualifies as a service-related death if the employee was actively deployed in frontline duties
Pension Calculation Must Be Retrospective
- Pensionary benefits must be calculated from the date the employee became eligible under the relevant service rules, not from the date of application or death
- The Mamta Shukla precedent now binds all state authorities to apply retrospective fixation of pay and pension where service continuity is established
- Interest at 18% per annum is now a standard entitlement for delayed payments in service matters
Medical Reimbursement Is a Statutory Right, Not a Concession
- Medical expenses incurred during treatment for service-related illness must be reimbursed under applicable rules, regardless of regularization status
- Death certificates citing post-COVID sepsis are sufficient to trigger reimbursement and compassionate relief
- Practitioners should file claims with supporting medical records and service proof immediately upon death
