Krishna Kumari vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5112 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 2
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3792 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Krishna Kumari
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. And 6 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jaibind Singh Rathour,Ran Vijay Singh
 
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

Heard Sri Manish Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents as well as Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.3. Sri J.B.S. Rathaur has accepted notice for opposite party no.6.

By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 23/04/2021 passed by the respondent no.4 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for ex-gratia compensation as contained in Annexure No.1 to the Writ Petition after summoning its original.

(i) Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the report dated 26/06/2021 issued by the respondent no.7 as contained in Annexure No.2 to the Writ Petition after summoning its original.

(iii) Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for ex-gratia relief/compensation in the light of Government Order dated 01/06/2021 as contained in Annexure No.9 to the Writ Petition."

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.16 of the writ petition, which is an order dated 18.05.2022 passed by this Court in Writ-C No.86 of 2022, Nisha and Another Vs. State of U.P. Thur. Additional Chief Secretary Panchayat Raj Department, Civil Secretariat and Others, allowing the writ petition of identically placed claimants.

So as to substantiate that the present case being identical case, Sri Singh has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.2 of the writ petition wherein the claim of one Ramesh Kumar for payment of ex-gratia payment has been rejected in the same manner the payment of ex-gratia payment of the present petitioner has been rejected, who is at serial no.1. Husband of the present petitioner, namely, Sri Shailendra Kumar was also serving at Sultanpur and both Sri Shailendra Kumar and Sri Ramesh Kumar were admitted in the same hospital i.e. Community Health Centre, Baldirai, District Sultanpur. This Court vide order dated 18.05.2022 passed in re; Nisha and Another (supra) has considered the relevant Government Order dated 01.06.2021 and the report dated 26.06.2021 (Annexure No.2), which declared the ex-gratia claim of Sri Shailendra Kumar (since deceased), the husband of the present petitioner and of Sri Ramesh Kumar (since deceased), the husband of Smt. Nisha, the petitioner of Writ-C No.86 of 2022 as not admissible for the reason that their death do not appear to be in COVID-19. For the convenience the order dated 18.05.2022 passed by this Court in re; Nisha and Another (supra) is being reproduced herein below:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for parties.

2. Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order dated 06.10.2021 passed by respondent no.5 District Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Sultanpur whereby the application of the petitioners with regard to compensation on account of death of late Ramesh Kumar Yadav, husband of petitioner no.1 is rejected.

3. The facts the case are that late Ramesh Kumar Yadav, husband of petitioner no.1 was an assistant teacher. He joined as a teacher on 8.12.2020 at a primary school in the Sultanpur district. He was sent on training for election duty on 10.04.2021. He remained on election duty on 18.04.2021 and 19.04.2021 and apparently, immediately thereafter fell sick. On 21.04.2021 he was treated at Community Health Centre, Baldirai, District Sultanpur for fever and breathing difficulty. At the CHC, Baldirai he was only given normal medication. Thereafter on 23.04.2021 his situation became serious and he was referred to the district hospital Sultanpur for emergency treatment. At district hospital, Sultanpur, his sample for RT-PCR test to determine Covid-19 was taken. While waiting for lab report to return, in the intervening night of 23/24.04.2021 he expired at a young age of 28 years, just after about four months of joining the service. Finally, the lab report reported that it has not received the sample. For the said reason, he was not treated as a Covid-19 patient and refused compensation.

4. Learned Standing Counsel relies upon a committee report dated 26.06.2021 and submits that RT-PCR sample for Covid-19 test was not received by the lab and, therefore, the deceased is not being treated as died from Covid-19.

5. Clause-12 of the Government Order dated 01.06.2022 specifically provides that any person who has expired on election duty within 30 days from Covid-19 would be entitled for ex-gratia payment. The facts of the case clearly shows that deceased was suffering from Covid-19 symptoms and initially treated as normal patient of cold and fever. Later due to breathlessness and developing emergency situation he was referred to district hospital, Sultanpur where he expired. Symptoms of the deceased itself shows that he was suffering from Covid-19. Merely non receiving of sample from the lab would not make any difference whatsoever.

6. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Gaurav Kumar Bansal Vs. Union of India(UOI) and Ors. 2021 6 AWC 5746 SC, has directed the State to clear ex-gratia announced by the States to legal heirs of Covid-19 victim, as early as possible without going too much into technicalities of the cause of death specially when the victims have shown signs of Covid-19 prior to their death but the death certificate says otherwise. Relevant portions of Paragraph 10 and 11 of Gaurav Kumar (Supra.) reads as under:

"10. In furtherance of our earlier order dated 30.06.2021, it is directed as under:

i)....

vii) that no States shall deny the ex-gratia assistance of Rs. 50,000/- to the next of the kin of the deceased died due to Covid-19 solely on the ground that in the death certificate issued by the appropriate authority, the cause of death is not mentioned as "Died due to Covid-19":"

"11. Now so far as the directions contained in para 16(2) of our earlier order dated 30.06.2021 for issuance of the death certificates/official document stating the exact cause of death, i.e., "died due to Covid-19" to the family members of the deceased who died due to Covid-19 is concerned, considering the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India dated 8.9.2021 and the subsequent clarification in the additional affidavit dated 22.09.2021 and the guidelines dated 3.9.2021, in furtherance of our earlier order dated 30.06.2021, it is further directed as under:

i)....

v) all concerned hospitals where the patient was admitted and given treatment shall provide all the necessary documents of treatment etc. to the family member of the deceased, as and when demanded, and if any hospital and/or the place where the deceased had taken treatment refuses to furnish such documents, it will be open for the Grievance Redressal Committee to call for such information and the concerned hospital/institution where the deceased was admitted shall have to furnish such particulars as required for the purpose of establishing that the death was due to Covid-19;

vi)....

viii) all endeavours shall be made by the District Disaster Management Authority/District Administration and even the Grievance Redressal Committee to avoid any technicalities and all concerned authority shall act as a helping hand, so as to wipe off the tears of those who have suffered due to loss of a family member died due to Covid-19;"

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 06.10.2021 cannot stand and is set aside.

8. Respondent no.4 District Magistrate/District Election Officer, Sultanpur is directed to pay the entire compensation to the petitioners as per Government Order dated 01.06.2021 within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him.

9. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed."

As per report dated 26.06.2021 (Annexure No.2) being issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Sultanpur addressing to the Chief Development Officer, Sultanpur, it has been categorically indicated that when the husband of the petitioner was admitted in the Community Health Centre, Baldirai, his blood pressure and oxygen saturation level was normal but after some time, it declined and his oxygen saturation level was 84%, his blood pressure was 80/60 and his pulse rate was 120/minute, and after some time, the husband of the petitioner collapsed. Sri Singh has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.6 of the writ petition, which is a referral prescription of one Dr. J.K. Srivastava at Valipur, Sultanpur wherein it has been indicated that the symptoms of the petitioner's husband were like COVID, therefore, he should be referred to the higher hospital. In the higher hospital i.e. Community Health Centre, Baldirai, Sultanpur, the husband of the petitioner collapsed/ died.

The main ground not to consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of ex-gratia compensation is that there was no report of her husband that he was patient of COVID-19. The aforesaid reason has been dealt with by this Court in re; Nisha and Another (supra) vide paras- 5 & 6 and such reason was not treated as justifiable, therefore, the impugned order in re; Nisha and Another (supra) was quashed.

On being confronted the learned counsels for the opposite parties as to whether the judgment and order dated 18.05.2022 passed in re; Nisha and Another (supra) has been complied with, they have submitted that they have no information about the compliance of the aforesaid order and if they are provided some reasonable time, they may file counter affidavit.

Considering the fact that exactly the identical issue in re; Nisha and Another (supra) has been decided by this Court vide judgment and order dated 18.05.2022, therefore, there would be no fruitful purpose to keep the present writ petition pending.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is decided in terms of judgment and order dated 18.05.2022 passed in re; Nisha and Another (supra).

Thus, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.04.2022 passed by opposite party no.4 and the report dated 26.06.2021 issued by opposite party no.7 (Annexures No.1 & 2) are hereby quashed.

The competent opposite party is directed to pay the ex-gratia amount/ entire compensation to the petitioner as per Government Order dated 01.06.2021 within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him.

No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 10.6.2022 [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

RBS/-