JUDGMENT : P. V. Balakrishnan, J. The petitioners are the legal heirs of one late Dr.Abdul Manaf who died on 03.06.2021, due to Covid-19 related issues. The deceased had developed Covid-19 infection during his duty period when he was employed in Moulana Hospital, Perinthalmanna, as a full time general Dental Surgeon. Respondents 3 and 5 has also confirmed the afore fact as per Exts.P3 and P4. 2. The 1 st respondent - Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, had issued Ext.P6 order dated 28.03.2020, under the Pradhan Manthri Garib Kalyan Package, an insurance scheme for health workers fighting Covid-19, giving a coverage of Rs.50 lakhs for each healthcare providers, who are fighting Covid- 19 pandemic. As per Ext.P8 letter issued by the 1 st respondent, it was also clarified that private hospital staff / retired / volunteer / local urban bodies/contract/ daily wage / adhoc/ outsourced staff requisitioned by States / Central Hospitals / autonomous hospitals of Central / States / UTs / AIIMs and INIs /Hospital of Central Ministries can also be drafted for Covid -19 related responsibilities and that all those cases are covered under the scheme. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted Exts.P9 to P13 claim forms before the 7 th respondent seeking compensation under Ext.P6 scheme. While so, the 1 st respondent by order dated Ext.P14 extended the time to file the claim forms with the 7 th respondent, till 31.07.2023. The 6 th respondent also recommended the claim of the petitioners as per Exts.P15 and P16 to the 2 nd respondent. Similarly, the 3 rd respondent also recommended for payment of compensation as per Exts.P17 and P18 to the 2 nd respondent. It is the grievance of the petitioners that even though all these happened, the claim of the petitioners was never considered and no orders have been passed on the claim applications. 3. Heard Smt.Smitha Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.M.Santhy, the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent, Shri.M.Ajay, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents, Sri. George A. Cherian, the learned counsel appearing for the 7 th respondent and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 4 to 6. 4. 3. Heard Smt.Smitha Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.M.Santhy, the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent, Shri.M.Ajay, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents, Sri. George A. Cherian, the learned counsel appearing for the 7 th respondent and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 4 to 6. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterated the contentions in the writ petition and submitted that even though the petitioners are lawfully entitled to the compensation as prescribed in Ext.P6 scheme, the same has not been approved by the 1 st respondent. She argued that the claim applications, along with all necessary documents were filed before the 7 th respondent in time and if there is delay from the part of the 7 th respondent to forward the same to the 1 st respondent, the petitioners cannot be faulted with. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent submitted that the claim forms of the petitioners have been received by the 1 st respondent, through the 7 th respondent on 12.06.2024 and that those applications were incomplete due to non-production of relevant documents. She further submitted that the scheme had expired on 15.10.2022 and the last date of submission of claim was 31.07.2023. She also submitted that no documents can be received after the afore cut off date and hence, the claim of the petitioners were not granted. 6. The learned counsel for the 7 th respondent submitted that the claim form submitted by the petitioners were forwarded to the 1 st respondent, as per Ext.R7(a) request dated 29.04.2024 made by the 1 st respondent and that they were forwarded as per serial No.92 in Ext.R7(b), on 11.06.2024. 7. The learned counsel for the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents submitted that they have already recommended the claim of the petitioners. 8. On an anxious consideration of rival submissions and the materials on record, I find considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners have submitted the claim forms before the 7 th respondent, within the period prescribed by the 1 st respondent. 8. On an anxious consideration of rival submissions and the materials on record, I find considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners have submitted the claim forms before the 7 th respondent, within the period prescribed by the 1 st respondent. It can also be seen that the 7 th respondent has forwarded the same to the 1 st respondent as per Ext.R7(b) on 11.06.2024, on the basis of Ext.R7(a) communication dated 29.04.2024 issued by the 1 st respondent, asking it to foward all the claims pending. It is admitted by the 1 st respondent that the claim submitted by the petitioners have thus been received from the 7 th respondent, on 12.06.2024. If so, it can be safely concluded that the petitioners have submitted the claim forms before the 7 th respondent as per the scheme, within the time limit prescribed and also that the same has been received by the 1 st respondent in time. 9. The contention of the 1 st respondent that on receiving the claim forms on 12.06.2024, certain defects in the form of absence of certain relevant documents were noted, is not at all a ground to deny the claim of the petitioners who have submitted their applications bonafidely, within time. If there was any defect as stated afore, the 7 th respondent, which acted as an agent of the 1 st respondent, ought to have intimated the petitioners about the same, so that they will get an opportunity to cure the defects. It is also to be seen that the 1 st respondent has also not infomed the petitioners about the defects when they received the claims on 12.06.2024. Hence, the petitioners never had an opportunity to know about the defects and cure the same. If so, the petitioners, who have submitted the claim forms within the prescribed time limit, cannot be faulted with and their claims cannot be rejected on this ground. 10. The result of the foregoing decisions is that the 1 st respondent is bound to consider the claims submitted by the petitioners for compensation as per Ext.P6 scheme. 11. If so, the petitioners, who have submitted the claim forms within the prescribed time limit, cannot be faulted with and their claims cannot be rejected on this ground. 10. The result of the foregoing decisions is that the 1 st respondent is bound to consider the claims submitted by the petitioners for compensation as per Ext.P6 scheme. 11. Ergo, this writ petition is allowed, as follows: (i) The petitioner shall forward the documents as mentioned in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the 1 st respondent dated 31.12.2025 to the 1 st respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners shall also forward the copy of the afore documents to the 7 th respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the 7 th respondent in-turn shall forward the same to the 1 st respondent through proper channel within a further period of two weeks; (ii) On receipt of the afore documents, the 1 st respondent shall take a call on Exts.P9 to P13 claims submitted by the petitioners within a period of three months thereafter and communicate its decision to the petitioners; (iii) It is made clear that if the 1 st respondent requires any further documents or clarifications for processing the claim of the petitioners, the same shall be promptly communicated to the petitioners and they shall be given an opportunity to comply with the same.