The Bombay High Court has affirmed that the families of frontline municipal employees who died due to Covid-19 are entitled to ex-gratia compensation even if the employee was admitted to a private hospital, rejecting rigid procedural compliance when the factual basis of death is unequivocally established. This judgment underscores the primacy of substance over form in recognizing the sacrifice of essential workers during the pandemic.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, legal heirs of the late Shri Unmesh Sharad Kulkarni, a Class IV sweeper employed by the Manmad Municipal Council for 31 years, seek payment of Rs. 50,00,000 under the Maharashtra Government Resolution (GR) dated 11/02/2022. Shri Kulkarni was appointed as frontline staff on 09/01/2021 to manage the Covid-19 surge at public locations. He contracted the virus while on duty and died on 29/03/2021. The Municipal Council submitted a proposal to the District Administrative Officer on 22/11/2021, accompanied by his appointment letter, medical reports, death certificate, and hospital records confirming Covid-19 as the cause of death.
Procedural History
- 29/03/2021: Late Shri Unmesh Kulkarni died due to Covid-19 while on duty.
- 22/11/2021: Municipal Council submitted proposal to Collector with all supporting documents.
- 09/11/2022: Iqra Hospital, where he was treated, admitted failure to upload his name on the ICMR portal due to lack of training.
- 23/09/2022 & 07/12/2022: Petitioners repeatedly requested compensation.
- 12/12/2024: Respondent No. 7 (Urban Development Department) claimed it had not received any proposal from the Municipal Council.
- 11/02/2026: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 seeking immediate release of compensation.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a direction to the State and its agencies to release the Rs. 50,00,000 ex-gratia compensation without further delay or procedural hurdles, arguing that the cause of death was duly documented and the employee was a recognized frontline worker.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the requirement of admission in a government hospital under the GR dated 04/08/2021 can be invoked to deny compensation when the employee died due to Covid-19 contracted in the course of duty, and the cause of death is certified by a private hospital with no dispute over its authenticity.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners argued that the employee was a frontline worker assigned to high-risk duties during the pandemic, and his death was directly linked to his official responsibilities. They emphasized that the cause of death was certified by the treating hospital, corroborated by medical records and the Municipal Council’s internal verification. The failure to upload the name on the ICMR portal was an administrative lapse by the hospital, not attributable to the family. They relied on the Court’s earlier judgment in Vijaya Yashwant Jadhav v. Block Development Officer to highlight the moral and legal obligation to honor frontline sacrifices.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the GR dated 04/08/2021 required verification of documents and mandated that claims be processed only after scrutiny by the Collector and approval by the Urban Development Department. It argued that since the proposal was not formally received by Respondent No. 7, the claim could not be processed. The State also raised a technical objection that the employee was treated in a private hospital, implying non-compliance with the GR’s implied conditions.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the State’s reliance on procedural formalities, holding that the substance of the claim must prevail over technical non-compliance. It noted that the GR was issued after the employee’s death, making any condition requiring admission to a government hospital both retrospective and unreasonable. The Court emphasized that during the pandemic, private hospitals were the only viable option for many due to overwhelmed public infrastructure.
"To expect him to be admitted only in a government hospital for claiming an entitlement, is arbitrary and unjust."
The Court found that the Municipal Council had already conducted due diligence, verified the documents, and forwarded the proposal with full certification. The hospital’s apology for failing to upload the name on the ICMR portal was acknowledged as an administrative error, not a fraud or misrepresentation. The Court distinguished between procedural lapses and substantive eligibility, stating:
"The substance that matters is whether the employee's death is due to contracting Covid during the course of his duties in tackling the surge of Covid-19."
The Court also invoked the moral imperative recognized in its earlier judgment in Vijaya Yashwant Jadhav, framing the compensation as a recognition of sacrifice, not merely a statutory benefit. It held that subjecting the claim to fresh scrutiny after nearly five years would amount to inflicting further trauma on the family of a 31-year public servant.
The Verdict
The petitioners won. The Court held that the entitlement to Covid compensation is not contingent on hospital type when the cause of death is certified and the employee was a frontline worker. It directed immediate processing of the proposal and payment of Rs. 50,00,000 within 10 weeks from 16/02/2026.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compensation Cannot Be Denied on Hospital Type
- Practitioners representing families of deceased frontline workers must argue that admission to a private hospital does not disqualify a claim under any Covid compensation scheme.
- The burden shifts to the State to prove fraud or falsification - not to impose posthumous conditions not in force at the time of death.
Procedural Lapses Are Not Grounds for Rejection
- Administrative failures by hospitals or agencies (e.g., ICMR portal omission) cannot be used to deny benefits to claimants.
- Where the employer (e.g., Municipal Council) has verified and forwarded the claim, the State must act on the merits, not demand re-verification.
Moral Imperative Overrides Technicality
- Courts will prioritize the spirit of welfare schemes over rigid compliance, especially for low-wage public servants who died in service.
- This judgment sets a precedent for interpreting GRs and compensation schemes in light of the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic, not bureaucratic checklists.
