49-WP-3651-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3651 OF 2026 Nanda Dilip Jadhav ...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary Ministry Of Transport And Anr. ...Respondents —————— Mr. Vishwanath Talkute a/w Mr. Mahesh Bhosale, Ms. Sampada Patil, Mr. Shivaji Kokare, for the Petitioner. Ms. Tejas Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Dhananjayrao Rananaware a/w Mr. Shubham Dhoble, Mr. Samarth Chavan, for the Respondent No. 2. —————— Coram : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH & NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. Date : SEPTEMBER 28, 2026 P. C. : 1. By the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction to Respondent No. 2 to comply with the Respondent No. 1's Government Resolution (“GR”) dated 29th May, 2020, and the Respondent No. 2’s circular dated 1st June, 2020, and to pay the ex-gratia compensation to the Petitioner on account of the death of her husband during COVID pandemic. The Petitioner's husband was working as a bus conductor with Respondent No. 2-Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (“MSRTC”). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, statewide lockdown was Arya Chavan 1 of 7 2026:BHC-KOL:9336-DB 49-WP-3651-2026.doc declared and the movement of the general public was restricted. However, the medical and essential services were activated and regulated with necessary restrictions. On 22nd March, 2020, the Municipal Commissioner directed that MSRTC and BEST would arrange local transport for emergency service providers, and the Petitioner's husband, who was working as a conductor, reported to duty. On 29th May, 2020, Respondent No. 1 had issued GR providing for ex-gratia assistance of Rs. 50 lakhs in event of death of employees on duty. Similar circular was also issued by Respondent No. 2 on 1st June, 2020. On 10th June, 2020, Respondent No. 2 passed resolution that to be entitled for ex-gratia compensation, the deceased should have been on duty for 15 days prior to death. The Petitioner's husband was working as a bus conductor at wai depot, right up to the end of October 2020, and was admitted due to COVID-related symptoms at Vijayshri Hospital and Polyclinic from 1st November, 2020 to 4th November, 2020, and succumbed to the virus on 24th November, 2020. The Respondent No. 2 issued a circular for payment of Rs. 5 lakhs compensation for those ineligible under GR dated 29th May, 2020 and applied the said circular dated 30th September, 2021 to the Petitioner's husband and declined to pay ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs and only paid Rs. 5 lakhs. Hence, the present Petition. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that under the Arya Chavan 2 of 7 49-WP-3651-2026.doc GR dated 29th May, 2020, the Petitioner is entitled to ex-gratia assistance of Rs. 50 lakhs, as the death of her husband was on duty due to COVID-19 pandemic. He would further submit that the GR has been interpreted in various judicial pronouncements of this Court, where the Courts have liberally interpreted the various clauses of GR and have granted ex-gratia compensation. He submits that there cannot be any distinction between bus conductor working in COVID-19 pandemic for ferrying health workers and the essential service workers. He submits that the Petitioner's husband had died due to contact with health workers and other passengers, and was therefore, entitled to ex-gratia assistance of Rs. 50 lakhs and not Rs. 5 lakhs, which was paid by holding the Petitioner ineligible under the GR dated 29th May, 2020. He would draw attention of this Court to the decisions passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and would submit that in identical cases, relief has been granted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2-Corporation would submit that the Petitioner's husband was not performing essential services as understood in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. He submits that the Petitioner's husband was on regular duty and the circular dated 1st June, 2020 makes it clear that employees, who are working in essential services include survey, tracing, tracking, prevention, testing, treatment and relief activities. He submits that as Arya Chavan 3 of 7 49-WP-3651-2026.doc the Petitioner's husband was not performing any emergency or essential services, the GR dated 29th May, 2020 and the circular dated 1st June, 2020 do not apply. He submits that in accordance with the resolution passed by Respondent No. 2, compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs has been paid to the Petitioner's husband. 4. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. 5. The Petitioner's husband was working as bus conductor with Respondent No. 2 and was not engaged in any COVID-related duties of survey, tracing, tracking, etc. However, it cannot be disputed that the Petitioner's husband was discharging duty as bus conductor ferrying the health workers and other essential service workers and had contracted COVID virus. The death of the Petitioner's husband was by reason of succumbing to the virus, as is evident from the medical certificate of the cause of death. It is specifically pleaded that the Petitioner's husband was working right till the end of October 2020 and contracted COVID in November 2020. The reliance placed by Respondent No. 2 on the GR dated 29th May, 2020 seeking to give a restricted meaning to the GR dated 29th May, 2020 is unacceptable in view of the various judicial pronouncements of this Court. 6. In the case of Sushma Jagannath Shinde vs The State of Maharashtra And Another1, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court 1 WP No. 13984/24 decided on 23/02/2026 by Bombay High Court Arya Chavan 4 of 7 49-WP-3651-2026.doc considered the applicability of the GR dated 29th May, 2020 to the Petitioner therein, who was working as peon with the Sales Tax Office. Examining the GR and the scheme under the said GR dated 29th May, 2020, the Hon'ble Division Bench held that Clause 3 of the GR expanded the scope of the staff within the District Administration, Police, Home Guards, employees of various departments, etc. who have been involved in COVID-related duties. It held that the Petitioner therein was required to attend office of Sales Tax for performing his daily official duties and is required to be regarded as employee, who was involved in discharging COVID-related duties. It further held that the categories enlisted under Clause 3 of the GR dated 29th May, 2020 cannot be regarded as exhaustive and would not constitute a ground for depriving the benefits to the Petitioner therein. 7. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Vijaya Yashwant Jadhav And Others vs Block Development Officer, Karveer Panchayat Samittee, Kolhapur, And Others2 where the Petitioner was working as Extension Officer with the Panchayat Samittee. 8. In the case of Subodh Nayan Lakeshri vs General Manager BrihanMumbai Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking And Another3, the Hon'ble Division Bench applied the GR dated 29th May, 2020 to a bus conductor working with BEST. In that case the Petitioner's 2 WP No. 17617/24 decided on 10/12/2025 by Bombay High Court 3 WP No. 2411/23 decided on 25/03/2026 by Bombay High Court Arya Chavan 5 of 7 49-WP-3651-2026.doc father was identically situated, as he was performing his regular duties during COVID pandemic. The Hon'ble Division Bench has followed the decisions expanding the scope of GR dated 29th May, 2020 and directed the release of ex-gratia compensation. 9. There is no distinguishing feature demonstrated in the present case, which would disentitle the Petitioner to the ex-gratia compensation. Merely because the Petitioner's husband was discharging regular duty as bus conductor, it cannot be said that he would not be covered by Clause 3 of the GR dated 29th May, 2020, as transportation of the health workers, police personnel and other workers working in various departments cannot be said to be not relatable to COVID pandemic duties. The Petitioner's husband has succumbed to the COVID virus in his call for duty, and considering the settled position in law, we are inclined to allow the Petition. The grant of compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs is on the basis of inapplicability of GR dated 29th May, 2020 and considering various judicial pronouncements of this Court, and particularly Subodh Nayan Lakeshri vs General Manager BrihanMumbai Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking And Another (supra), where the Petitioner was also bus conductor and had succumbed to COVID virus, while reporting for duty, the Petitioner is entitled to ex-gratia compensation. 10. In light of the above, the Petitioner is entitled to the ex-gratia Arya Chavan 6 of 7 49-WP-3651-2026.doc compensation under the GR dated 29th May, 2020. Respondent No. 2 is directed to pay the Petitioner ex-gratia compensation after deducting the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs, which is already paid expeditiously, and in any event, within a period of eight weeks from today. 11. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms. 12. Applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] Arya Chavan 7 of 7