Reserved on 07.10.2025 Delivered on 17.10.2025 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 8030 of 2023 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J. HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J. Per- Hon'ble Vivek Saran, J. 1. Heard Ms. Ruhi Yadav, appearing in person as guardian of the petitioners who are minor, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1,2 and 4 and Sri Harsh Vardhan Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no.5. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for following reliefs: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to release the ex- gratia amount under the government order dated 01.06.2021 to the petitioners on account of their mother’s death due to Covid-19 infection in Panchayat Election, 2021 forthwith. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.4 to consider and decide the representation dated 17.12.2021 of the petitioners through maternal aunty (Mausi) Ruhi Yadav for payment of ex- gratia amount in terms of government order dated 01.06.2021. " 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that Smt. Pushplata Yadav who was working as Assistant Teacher was assigned election duties and in the meantime she got infected with Corona Virus Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Santosh Kumar Pandey, Vaibhav Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Harsh Vardhan Gupta Yashasvi And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) The State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) during the ongoing pandemic Covid-19 and ultimately she succumbed on 27.05.2021. It is further submitted that the petitioners preferred a claim for grant of ex-gratia compensation as per the Government Order dated 01.06.2021 which was not considered. He has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Kusum Lata Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 others: 2022 SCC Online All 2307 in which vide paragraph-17 and 18, the Court has held thus: “17. Having regard to the three parameters provided in para-12, this Court would note that any case detected beyond the period of 30 days from election duty as covid positive is certainly a category not covered under the scheme. The death of asymptomatic cases within 30 days of election duty as per the mandate of government order is covered under the G.O. Provided the death certificate on account of COVID-19 is produced by the claimants. This principle broadens the scope of G.O. for symptomatic cases where the infection after election duty was detected within 30 days, however, death in such a case occurred beyond the period of 30 days. The two situations that deserve to be treated at par are; firstly, where the death occurred due to covid-19 within a period of 30 days of participation in election duty in an asymptomatic case and; secondly, where the infection of COVID-19 was detected within 30 days of election duty but the death occurred thereafter during treatment or otherwise. 18. The bar of 30 days period in the cases where infection was detected within 30 days of election duty but death occurred beyond the same is not attributable to any negligence on the part of victim that would defeat the claim rather it is owing to the lack of extra ordinary care or treatment of which the duty would lay on the State. Therefore, all the detected cases within 30 days of election duty cannot be segregated from those where the infection despite remaining undetected resulted into the death of a victim due to COVID-19 within the period prescribed i.e. 30 days. Any other principle derived by the State on the basis of scientific understanding is bound to defeat the very object of the Government Order and the purpose will frustrate. It is not necessary for the State Government to ahdere to the strict scientific principles in the matter of situations which went beyond the control of scientific means, therefore, the State Government in its caveat cannot impose an embargo upon the Courts of law to construe the scope of policy strictly within the scientific principles.” 4. Learned Standing Counsel has placed instruction dated 15.04.2023 under the signatures of the District Magistrate, Kaushambi before this Court, which are taken on record. As per the instruction, it has been submitted that none of the heirs of Late Pushplata Yadav had submitted their claim within time on the portal of Panchayat Raj Department for grant of ex-gratia compensation, thus, their claim was not considered. 5. It is to be seen that mother of the petitioners died on 27.05.2021 and according to the learned Standing Counsel on the strength of the WRIC No. 8030 of 2023 2 institution, the claim ought to have been uploaded till 15.06.2021 by 6 PM on the website. The stand taken by the State is too technical especially remembering the situation during the pandemic and also that the family must have been grieving due to the death and the petitioners are minor. 5. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, this petition stands disposed of with direction to the petitioners to make a fresh representation enclosing all the requisite details and documents before respondent no.4- District Magistrate/District Election Officer, (Panchayat), Kaushambi alongwith certified copy of this order within a period of three weeks from today and in the event such a representation is filed, respondent no.4 is directed to decide the same in accordance with law within a further period of four weeks ensuring that the interest of the petitioner who are minor, are protected. . 6. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the matter on merits of the case. 7. No order as to costs. October 17, 2025 Deepika WRIC No. 8030 of 2023 3 (Vivek Saran,J.) (Prakash Padia,J.) Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad