HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10786 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 & 2 and Shri Abhinav Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no. 3. 2. The petitioner, a widower, is before this Court raising a challenge to the order dated 24.6.2021, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the writ petition, whereby his claim for ex-gratia payment on account of death of his wife Smt Sadhna Singh, who was working as an Assistant Teacher and was deputed on election work during COVID-19 pandemic having died has been rejected. 3. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that perusal of the order impugned itself indicates that the respondents have indicated that in all probability Smt Sadhna Singh was COVID-19 positive but as no report pertaining to same i.e. RT-PCR or Antigen test has been received consequently the petitioner's claim for grant of exgratia is not in consonance with Government Order dated 1.6.2021 and hence rejected. 4. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once respondent no. 3 has himself indicated that in all probability the wife of petitioner was COVID-19 positive and she died on 24.4.2021 as such keeping in view the Division Bench judgement Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bhuvan Dwivedi, Dharmendra Kumar, Soumya Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Abhinav Singh Dileep Kumar Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Panchayati Raj Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) of this Court passed in a bunch of petitions leading being Writ C No. 28249 of 2021 in re: Kusum Lata Yadav vs State of U.P. and others decided on 25.7.2022, a copy of which is annexure 8 to the writ petition, as well as order dated 19.1.2022 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gaurav Kumar Bansal vs Union of India in Miscellaneous Application No. 1805 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No. 539 of 2021, a copy of which is annexure 10 to the writ petition, wherein it it has been held that applications for exgratia payment should not be rejected on technical grounds, the order impugned merits to be set aside with further direction to the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for grant of exgratia. 5. Perusal of order impugned would indicate that respondents have indicated that at the time of death Smt Sadhna Singh was probably infected by COVID-19 but rejected the same on the ground that the RT-PCR and Antigen test report was not received. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order of Gaurav Kumar Bansal (supra) has already held that such technical rejections should not be done by the states. 7. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by this Court in the case of Kusum Lata Yadav (supra). 8. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 24.1.2021, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, is set aside. The respondent no. 3 is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law considering the relevant Government Orders as well as the judgement of this Court in the case of Kusum Lata Yadav (supra) and order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gaurav Kumar Bansal (supra). 9. Let such consideration for payment of ex-gratia amount to the petitioner be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. The petitioner while sending certified copy of this order to the WRIA No. 10786 of 2025 2 respondents would also annex all relevant documents as would be required for processing his claim. In case any other documents is required the respondent no. 3 would inform the petitioner about the documents which would be supplied by the petitioner. September 16, 2025 J. K. Dinkar WRIA No. 10786 of 2025 3 (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench