The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that review jurisdiction under Article 226 is strictly limited to correcting patent errors or newly discovered evidence, and cannot serve as a substitute for appeal. In a case involving ex-gratia compensation for the family of a deceased police constable, the Court dismissed the State’s review application, emphasizing that once a coordinate bench has granted relief to similarly situated claimants under the same government order, discrimination against another beneficiary violates Article 14.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Smt. Krishna Singh, sought ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs under Government Order dated 11.04.2020 for the death of her husband, Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, Head Constable, U.P. Police, who died due to Covid-19 while performing duties related to enforcing pandemic protocols at a public location. The State initially rejected her claim despite a recommendation by the District Magistrate, Prayagraj, dated 14.11.2022, which had been accepted for another deceased officer, Sri Surendra Kumar, Jail Warder.
Key Facts
- The deceased, Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, was posted at Civil Airport, Prayagraj, and was engaged in enforcing social distancing and mandatory testing of passengers during the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic.
- Government Order dated 11.04.2020 provided ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs to families of government employees who died due to Covid-19 while performing duties related to prevention, protection, or treatment of the virus.
- The District Magistrate, Prayagraj, recommended payment on 14.11.2022, but the Relief Commissioner, Revenue, later rejected the claim after a committee meeting on 26.06.2024.
- The petitioner filed Writ-C No. 31953 of 2023 before the Allahabad High Court on 15.07.2023.
- On 03.10.2023, a Division Bench of the same Court, in Writ-C No. 32178 of 2023 (Smt. Champa Devi v. State of U.P.), granted Rs. 50 lakhs to the widow of another deceased police constable, Kamlesh Singh Yadav, under identical circumstances.
- On 02.11.2023, the Court disposed of the petitioner’s writ petition in terms of the Champa Devi judgment.
- The State filed a review application on 24.04.2026, over five months after the order, and submitted an affidavit of compliance on 30.04.2026.
- The State also filed a Special Leave Petition (Diary No. 25155 of 2026) before the Supreme Court on 24.04.2026 challenging the Champa Devi judgment.
- Meanwhile, the State had already released the compensation to Smt. Champa Devi.
Procedural History
- 11.04.2020: Government Order issued providing Rs. 50 lakhs ex-gratia to families of deceased employees who died due to Covid-19 while on duty.
- 14.11.2022: District Magistrate, Prayagraj, recommended ex-gratia payment for petitioner’s husband.
- 15.07.2023: Writ-C No. 31953 of 2023 filed by Smt. Krishna Singh.
- 03.10.2023: Division Bench in Smt. Champa Devi v. State of U.P. (Writ-C No. 32178 of 2023) granted Rs. 50 lakhs to similarly situated widow.
- 02.11.2023: Petitioner’s writ petition disposed of in terms of Champa Devi judgment.
- 26.06.2024: State convened a committee meeting to reject petitioner’s claim despite prior recommendation.
- 24.04.2026: State filed SLP before Supreme Court challenging Champa Devi judgment.
- 30.04.2026: Affidavit of compliance filed by Relief Commissioner.
- 30.04.2026: Review Application No. 409 of 2024 heard and dismissed.
The Parties' Positions
For the State (Applicants): Argued that the Champa Devi judgment was under challenge in the Supreme Court, that the petitioner’s husband did not qualify under the Government Order as he was not assigned to hospital duties, and that granting compensation would impose a heavy financial burden on the State exchequer.
For the Petitioner (Opposite Party): Contended that the State had already granted relief to Smt. Champa Devi under identical facts, that the Government Order was broadly worded to cover all essential service personnel engaged in pandemic containment, and that the review application was filed with inordinate delay and without proper authority.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought enforcement of the ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 50,00,000 as granted in Smt. Champa Devi, along with interest at 8% from the date of death (15.05.2021) until actual payment, as per recent coordinate bench rulings in Gyan Prakash Chaturvedi and Smt. Pushpa Devi.
The Legal Issue
Can a High Court entertain a review application under Article 226 to re-examine the merits of a judgment that granted relief under a government order, when the same relief has already been granted to a similarly situated claimant and the State has complied with that judgment?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on multiple coordinate bench judgments - Smt. Premlata Pandey, Gyan Prakash Chaturvedi, Smt. Pushpa Devi, and Mst. Usha Maurya - to establish that police personnel enforcing Covid protocols at public locations were covered under the Government Order dated 11.04.2020. He argued that the State’s refusal to pay the petitioner, while paying Smt. Champa Devi, violated Article 14. He further contended that the review application was filed with inordinate delay of ten months and was sworn by an unauthorized official, rendering it procedurally defective.
For the Respondent/State
The State argued that the Champa Devi judgment was under challenge in the Supreme Court and that the petitioner’s husband was not specifically assigned to hospital duties, thus falling outside the scope of the Government Order. It claimed that granting compensation would create a precedent leading to massive financial liability and that the review was necessary to prevent misuse of public funds.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by examining the scope of review jurisdiction under Article 226, citing Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma, and Lily Thomas v. Union of India. It held that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be invoked merely because a party disagrees with the reasoning or outcome.
"Review is not permissible on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits as the same would be the province of an Appellate Court."
The Court emphasized that an error apparent on the face of the record must be patent, obvious, and capable of being detected without lengthy reasoning. It found no such error in its own order dated 02.11.2023, which had merely followed the binding precedent of Smt. Champa Devi.
The Court noted the State’s conduct was contradictory: it had already paid compensation to Smt. Champa Devi, yet challenged the judgment in the Supreme Court after an inordinate delay of six months. It further observed that the State’s committee meeting on 26.06.2024 was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the Court’s order.
"Such practice cannot be accepted."
The Court also rejected the State’s financial burden argument, noting that the Government Order was issued with full awareness of potential liabilities and that discrimination against the petitioner violated the principle of equal protection under Article 14.
The Verdict
The review application was dismissed. The Court upheld its order dated 02.11.2023, directing the Relief Commissioner, Revenue, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to release ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 50,00,000 to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of the certified copy of this order. The Court further directed that interest at 8% per annum shall accrue from the date of death of the deceased, 15.05.2021, until actual payment. Costs of Rs. 25,000 were imposed on the State.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Equal Treatment Under Beneficial Orders Is Mandatory
- Practitioners must argue that when a government order is beneficial and a coordinate bench has granted relief to one claimant under identical facts, denying the same to another violates Article 14.
- Any attempt to distinguish claimants based on minor variations in posting or duty location will be rejected if the core function (Covid duty) is the same.
Review Applications Cannot Be Used to Reopen Final Orders
- A review petition cannot be filed merely because the court’s reasoning is perceived as erroneous or because the State later changes its mind.
- Delay in filing a review, especially beyond three months, will be fatal unless accompanied by a compelling explanation and proof of due diligence.
- Affidavits in review applications must be sworn by authorized officers; submissions by subordinate officials without sanction will be disregarded.
Interest Is a Natural Accretion on Delayed Compensation
- Where compensation is due and delayed for over a year, courts will routinely award interest at 8% from the date of death or incident, as a matter of equity and to prevent unjust enrichment of the State.
- This principle now applies uniformly across all Covid-related ex-gratia claims in Uttar Pradesh.
