LAXMI KUMARI v. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED THROUGH SECRETARY DEPTT OF HEALTH
WPC/6632/2022 · 2025-03-28
Deepak Roshan
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 31959 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 31959 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(C) No. 6632 of 2022
---- Laxmi Kumari W/o Late Dr. Virendra Seth, aged about 48 Years, residents of Vidhyasagar Pally, Parsudih, P.O. &
P.S.-Parsudih, District-East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur
..........Petitioner Versus
1. The Union of India represented through Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, P.O., P.S. & District-New Delhi.
2. The State of Jharkhand represented through Chief Secretary, AT, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, AT, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, District-East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur
4. Managing Director, The New India Assurance Company Limited, registered office at New India Assurance Building, 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai- 400001
.........Respondents
----
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-- For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate For the UOI : Mr. Ramit Satender, CGC For the Resp.-Insurance Company : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
-- 10/28.03.2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.
The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to pay appropriate compensation to the petitioner, who is a widow as her husband was a Corona warrior and he died during Covid-19 Pandemic.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-6, which is a policy decision taken by the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi, wherein certain guidelines are there.
Learned counsel fairly submits that he has only claimed on the basis of Annexure-6; however till date the petitioner has not received any amount of compensation.
2
4.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that as per his instruction the petitioner has not died due to Corona, rather he died due to Pneumonia.
5.
Learned counsel for the Respondent-Union of India submits that from bare perusal of Annexure-6 and the report of Insurance Company, it would be difficult to accept the claim of the petitioner.
6.
In reply to the same, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that Form-II was with respect to a personal accident insurance claim form for accidental loss of life on account of Covid-19 related duty.
7.
Having heard learned counsels for the rival parties, this Court is of the view that if the contention of the petitioner is accepted that whoever was on Corona duty and if he or she has died; then the beneficiary would be entitled for compensation as per Annexure-6, in that case, the beneficiaries of all the persons on duty during the entire COVID period will get compensation. Perhaps that might not be the intent of Annexure-6; rather this Court is of the view that any person, who died due to Corona while on duty in service during the pandemic; then the beneficiary will be entitled.
8.
Be that as it may; since there is no order which has been passed by the respondent authorities as to the claim of the petitioner; as such, the instant application is hereby disposed of by directing the 2nd Respondent to look into the matter and decide the claim of the petitioner strictly, in accordance with the policy of the Government. It goes without saying that since it was a beneficial scheme; as such, the order may be passed looking to the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the present case after verifying the factual aspect and the same may be communicated to the petitioner.
3
Since enough time has been passed pursuant to issuance of Annexure-6; as such, the order should be passed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Needless to say that if the order will be passed in favour of the petitioner, necessary compensation be made to her within a further period of 4 weeks.
Counsel for the respondent no. 1 is directed to forward the copy of the entire pleadings along with its order to the concerned respondent to pass an appropriate order.
9. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands
disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Jk