[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Subodh Nayan Lakeshri vs General Manager on 25 March, 2026
Author: R.I. Chagla
Bench: R.I. Chagla
2026:BHC-OS:7223-DB
WP-2411-23-Jt.doc
Sharayu Khot.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2411 OF 2023
Subodh Nayan Lakeshri ...Petitioner
Versus
General Manager
BrihanMumbai Electricity Supply and
Transport Undertaking & Anr. ...Respondents
----------
Ms. Madhavi Tavanandi a/w Mr. Vivek Thakare, Ms. Jagruti
Nimbalkar and Mr. Suraj Chakor for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vishal Talsania a/w Mr. Akshay Naik i/by Mr. Sagar Shetty for
Respondent No. 1 (BEST Undertaking).
Ms. Pushpa Yadav a/w Mr. Pratik Garde i/by Ms. Komal Punjabi for
Respondent No. 2 (BMC).
----------
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA J.
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J
Reserved on : 13th March 2026
Pronounced on : 25th March 2026
JUDGMENT :
(Per R.I. Chagla, J.)
SHARAYU
PANDURANG
KHOT
1. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking quashing
Digitally
signed by
SHARAYU
PANDURANG
and setting aside of the impugned decision communicated vide letter
KHOT
Date:
2026.03.25
17:43:28
+0530
dated 23rd November 2021 (Exh.H to the Petition) passed by the
WP-2411-23-Jt.doc
Respondent No. 1. Further direction is sought against the
Respondents directing them to forthwith give employment to the
Petitioner on compassionate grounds by considering his case under
Administrative Order No. 407 of 2020 dated 8th May 2020 issued by
Personnel & Welfare Establishment of Respondent No. 1. Further
direction is sought against the Respondents to forthwith give ex-
gratia compensation by considering the Petitioner's case under the
Departmental Notification dated 10th June 2020 issued by the
Personnel & Welfare Establishment of Respondent No. 1.
2. The Petitioner's father Late Mr. Nayan Vasant Lakeshri
was working as a Bus Conductor with Respondent No. 1 - Brihan
Mumbai Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking ("BEST").
3. The Government declared Covid 19 as pandemic under
under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and Disaster Management
Act, 2005 on 23rd March 2020 and imposed lockdown and
restrictions with effect from 23rd March 2020.
4. During Covid 19, the Petitioner's father was regularly
reporting to work and rendering his services.
WP-2411-23-Jt.doc
5. The Petitioner's father was on duty on 4th June 2020
and during the working hours, he had informed his wife that he
experienced weakness and body ache. He visited the doctor on the
same day and the doctor examined him from a distance due to Covid
19 symptoms and he was prescribed medicines.
6. Due to suspected covid case, the Petitioner's father was
admitted to Seven Hills Hospital by afternoon of 4th June 2020. On
6th June 2020, the Petitioner's father suddenly had a Myocardial
Infarction / Heart Attack and was declared dead. As per the Medical
Certificate of Cause of Death Report No. 009139 dated 6th June
2020, the provisional cause of death was mentioned as (a)
Myocardial Infarction and (b) Suspected Case of Covid 19.
7. In the Post cause of Death Report issued by Seven Hills
Post-Mortem Center, a handwritten statement mentioned "Post
Mortem not done. Cause of death given on the basis of inquest,
history, external examination as per Circular No. DMER/Death
Certificate/No. PM/Covid 19/35/2020 dated 6th June 2020.".
8. As per prevailing Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)
WP-2411-23-Jt.doc
due to Covid 19 pandemic, Respondent No. 2 - Brihanmumbai
Municipal Corporation ("BMC") cremated the body of the Petitioner's
father without handing over the body to the relatives of the deceased.
9. The Petitioner addressed a letter dated 19th June 2020
to the Assistant Work Manager, BEST requesting them to give him
employment on compassionate ground after the death of his father,
who was the sole earner of the family.
10. The Petitioner submitted an application in the prescribed
format for employment as Clerk on compassionate ground to
Respondent No. 1 on 19th July 2020.
11. The Petitioner's mother addressed a letter dated 22nd
July 2020 to the Assistant Work Manager of Respondent No. 1 - BEST
to employ the Petitioner on compassionate ground, as the Petitioner's
father was the sole earner of the family.
12. On 23rd November 2021, after more than a year, the
Petitioner received a letter from the Senior Manager (M.S.)
Employment Department of Respondent No. 1 - BEST rejecting his
WP-2411-23-Jt.doc
application for employment on compassionate grounds. The letter
stated that his application was rejected, as RTPCR Test was not
conducted on the Petitioner's father and no documents of his medical
treatment were available and hence, it was not clear that his death
was caused due to Covid 19.
13. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned letter
communication dated 23rd November 2021 has filed the present Writ
Petition.
14. Ms. Madhavi Tavanandi, the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner's father had contracted
Covid 19 virus during the course of his employment and which is
apparent from the Cause of Death Report No.009139 dated 6th June,
2020 of the Medical Team of the Seven Hills Hospital, which had
admitted him on 4th June 2020 and which shows the antecedent
cause of death as due to Covid. She has also referred to the
Admission Form of the Seven Hills Hospital, where under Chief
Complaint, the symptom which the Petitioner's father suffered from is
mentioned as Dry Cough for 2 days; Breathing Difficulty for 2 days;
High Grade Fever for 2 days; Body Ache for 2 days; Loose Motion
WP-2411-23-Jt.doc
for 2 days. The Petitioner's father also had Comorbidities i.e. Diabetes
since 8 - 9 years and Hypertension since 8 - 9 years. Further, the
SpO2 recorded was 73%. She has submitted that all these are
evidence of a classic case of Covid 19, which the Petitioner's father
suffered from.
15. Ms. Tavanandi has submitted that the Petitioner's father
had put in more than 27 years of service as Bus Conductor and was
sole earner in the family of three members comprising of his wife i.e.
the Petitioner's mother, who is a housewife and his son i.e. the
Petitioner, who is currently pursuing education and a part-time job.
She has submitted that considering the cause of his death, the
Respondent No.1 ought to have also taken these factors into account
in considering the Petitioner's application for compassionate
appointment. Further, the Petitioner's father having expired due to
Covid, would make the Petitioner eligible for ex gratia compensation
as per the Notification dated 10th June 2020 issued by the Personnel
& Welfare Establishment of Respondent No. 1 - BMC and ex gratia
compensation ought to have been granted to the Petitioner in the
sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- under the said Notification.
WP-2411-23-Jt.doc
16. Ms. Tavanandi has referred to the Respondent No.1 -
BMC's Dean Committee's communication dated 17th May 2022
which upon referring to the Petitioner's father having been admitted
at Seven Hills Hospital and having expired on 6th June 2020 opines
that the X-Ray Reports of the deceased were completely normal and
that no RTPCR Test came to be carried out due to which it has been
observed that the said death of the Petitioner's father was not caused
due to Covid, as this was not evidenced in any manner whatsoever.
She has submitted that this opinion of the Dean's Committee of
Respondent No. 2 - BMC is perverse, considering the fact that this is
contrary to the Admission Form and Cause of Death Report of the
Seven Hills Hospital adverted to above, wherein the probable cause
of the Petitioner's father's death is Covid.
17. Ms. Tavanandi has submitted that the standard of proof
applicable in a case of this nature, viz. death due to Covid cannot be
"proof beyond reasonable doubt" but the "preponderance of
probability" as held by this Court in Mayuri Krishna Jabare Vs.
General Manager, BEST & Anr.1. This Court in a similar factual
scenario held that the scales would obviously tilt in favour of the
1 Writ Petition No. 2019 of 2022 order dated November 11, 2022
WP-2411-23-Jt.doc
Petitioner to conclude that the Petitioner's father, in all probability,
died of Covid 19. The standard of proof applicable " is preponderance
of probability" tending to draw an inference that the fact of death of
the Petitioner's father due to Covid 19 must be more probable.
Further, this Court held that merely because there was no RTPCR
Report or adequate medical documentation could not have afforded
ground to refuse the benefits flowing from the Government
Resolution dated 9th May 2020. It would indeed be inhuman on the
part of the Court to refrain from interfering in this case and fold its
hands to decline relief to the heirs of the Petitioner's father, who died
while answering the call of duty.
18. This Court had accordingly, set aside the impugned order
and directed the BEST to sanction and release Rs. 50,00,000/- on
account of ex gratia compensation to the surviving heirs of the
Petitioner's father in equal shares.
19. Ms. Tavanandi has submitted that this decision is
squarely applicable in the facts of the present case, and a similar
order is required to be passed by this Court.
WP-2411-23-Jt.doc
20. Mr. Vishal Talsania, the learned Counsel for the
Respondent No. 1 - BEST has supported the impugned Order. He has
submitted that in the said communication dated 17th May, 2022, the
Respondent No. 2 - BMC's Dean's Committee had opined that the X-
Ray Reports of the deceased were completely normal and had
observed that there was no RTPCR Test conducted on the Petitioner's
father and hence the death of the deceased was not caused due to
Covid 19, as this was not evidenced in any manner whatsoever.
21. Mr. Talsania has referred to the Cause of Death Report of
Seven Hills Hospital relied upon by the Petitioner and has submitted
that the cause of death is shown as suspected Covid 19, but there is
no definite finding that the Petitioner's father had died due to Covid
19. He has submitted that the decision taken by the Dean's
Committee of the Respondent No. 2 - BMC cannot be faulted in any
way, as there was no evidence of the Petitioner's father having
expired due to Covid 19.
22. Mr. Talsania has submitted that the Petitioner was not
eligible to qualify for employment on compassionate grounds under
the Respondents' scheme when he failed to establish that the
WP-2411-23-Jt.doc
Petitioner's father had expired due to Covid 19. The Certification of
Cause of Death issued by Seven Hills Hospital mentioned his cause of
death as "Myocardial Infarction" and "Covid Suspect".
23. Mr. Talsania has submitted that the Government
Resolution dated 29th May 2020 issued by the Finance Department
of the Government of Maharashtra had notified that the Ministry of
Health & Family Welfare, Government of India has declared
insurance shield of Rs. 50,00,000/- to health workers from 28th
March 2020 and operative upto 30th September 2020 only. The
Circular dated 10th June 2020 contained the requisites therein as to
which families of the Officers, who have passed away due to Covid
19 will be given the declared insurance amount. He has submitted
that the Respondent No. 2 - BMC Dean's Committee had scrutinized
all the medical documents and had found that in the death summary
dated 6th June 2020, the swab was not taken and that the cause of
death as aforementioned was Myocardial Infarction in a Covid
suspect. Thus, the proposal of the Petitioner was not in accordance
with Circular dated 10th June 2020 and in particular, Clause 3(v)
and (vi) of the said Circular. He has accordingly, submitted that there
is no merit in the present Petition and the Petition may be dismissed.
WP-2411-23-Jt.doc
24. Having considered these submissions, it is necessary to
refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court (Coram :
Dipankar Datta CJ and Madhav Jamdar, J) in Mayuri Krishna Jabare
(supra), which has been relied upon by the Petitioner. In that case as
in this case, an objection had been raised by the BEST on the ground
that the Committee of Doctors, i.e. Dean's Committee constituted by
Respondent No. 2 - BMC did not certify that the Petitioner's father's
death was caused by Covid 19. In that case as in the present case,
there was a reference of RTPCR Test not having been conducted on
the Petitioner's father, when he was alive. The Petitioner in that case
too was a Bus Conductor, who had served in the employment of
BEST. There was a "cause of death certificate" issued by Dr. Metkari
of BMC, which clearly suggested that the Petitioner's father had an
acute respiratory distress syndrome together with influenza like
illness which led to his death. It was on these grounds that the
Petitioner's father's case was certified as suspected case of Covid 19
death and certificate was issued as per Circular dated 9th April 2020
of the Government of Maharashtra detailing "Medical Guidelines for
death declaration and procedural methods in diagnosed suspected
Covid 19 cases, brought dead cases, unknown and unclaimed bodies,
and inquest procedures".
WP-2411-23-Jt.doc
25. This Court had in the said decision held that the
standard of proof applicable in a case of this nature, cannot be "proof
beyond reasonable doubt" but the "preponderance of probability"
tending to draw an inference that the fact of death of the Petitioner's
father due to Covid 19 must be more probable. It was held that
merely because there was no RTPCR Report or adequate medical
documentation could not have afforded a ground to refuse the
benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 9th May
2020. It would indeed be inhuman on the part of the Court to refrain
from interfering in the stated case and fold their hands to decline
reliefs to the heirs of the Petitioner's father, who died while
answering the call of duty.
26. We consider it appropriate in the circumstances of the
present case to follow the view taken by the Division Bench of this
Court in the aforementioned decision. In the present case, the cause
of death certificate from Seven Hills Hospital clearly shows the
Petitioner's cause of death as that of Covid as well as Myocardial
Infarction. The examination of the Petitioner's father on 4th June
2020 as borne out from the Admission Form of Seven Hills Hospital
shows classic symptoms of Covid 19, viz. Dry Cough; Breathing
WP-2411-23-Jt.doc
Difficulty; High Grade Fever; Body Ache; Loose Motion, this
coupled with the Petitioner's father having Comorbidities of Diabetes
and Hypertension. It thus can be concluded on "preponderance of
probability" that the cause of death of the Petitioner's father being
that of Covid 19. This is the standard of proof applicable in a case of
this nature. Further in the present case, there was no RTPCR Report
and/or RTPCR Test having been conducted on the Petitioner's father
and as held in the aforementioned decision Mayuri Krishna Jabare
(supra), the mere fact of there being no RTPCR Report or adequate
medical documentation could not have afforded a ground to refuse
the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 29th May
2020.
27. Further, the communication of the Dean's Committee of
Respondent No. 2 - BMC rejecting the Petitioner's case of his father
having expired on account of Covid 19, is a communication which
has been addressed over two years after the Petitioner's father had
expired. Although it may be contended that it is a follow up response
to the Petitioner's application for compassionate appointment, on the
face of it only relies upon a X-Ray Report, which is stated to be clear,
without making any reference to the examination of the Petitioner's
WP-2411-23-Jt.doc
father on 4th June 2020 by the Doctor of the Seven Hills Hospital
which shows the Petitioner's father suffering from classic symptoms
of Covid 19 as borne out from the Admission Form. There is also no
reference made to the cause of death certificate issued by the Seven
Hills Hospital, which suggests that the Petitioner's father's cause of
death being that of Covid 19 apart from Myocardial Infarction.
28. We, accordingly, are of the view that the Petitioner has
been able to make out a strong case for grant of relief sought for in
the Petition. The Petitioner's father has been in service with the
Respondent No. 1 - BEST for over a period of 27 years as Bus
Conductor and was sole earning member in the family. Respondent
No. 1 - BEST was required to grant the application of the Petitioner
on compassionate grounds under Administrative Order No. 407 of
2020 dated 8th May 2020 as well as grant ex-gratia compensation as
per Notification dated 10th June 2020 in view of the fact of the death
of the Petitioner's father being due to Covid-19.
29. In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is allowed.
Hence, the following order :-
WP-2411-23-Jt.doc
(i) The impugned communication dated 23rd November
2021 (Exh.H to the Petition) passed by Respondent
No. 1 - BEST is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The Respondent No. 1 - BEST is directed to give
accelerated compassionate employment to the
Petitioner by considering his case under
Administrative Order No. 407 of 2020 dated 8th May
2020 issued by the Personnel & Welfare Establishment
of Respondent No. 1 - BEST.
(iii) We direct the Respondent No. 1 - BEST to sanction
and release Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh only)
on account of ex gratia compensation to the surviving
heirs of the Petitioner's father by considering his case
under the Departmental Notification dated 10th June
2020 issued by the Personnel & Welfare Establishment
of Respondent No. 1 - BEST.
(iv) The release of ex gratia compensation and accelerated
compassionate appointment by the Respondent No. 1
WP-2411-23-Jt.doc
- BEST shall be made as expeditiously as possible, but
not later than 60 days on receipt of authenticated copy
of this order.
(v) The Writ Petition stands allowed in above terms with
no order as to costs.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA J.]
