Delhi High Court
Subata Khan vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 12 November, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~69
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 12th November, 2024.
+ W.P.(C) 15681/2024
SUBATA KHAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma with Mr. Ashish
Gautam, Advocates
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, ASC with Ms.
Sheenu Priya, Mr. Sudhir Kumar
Shukla, Mr. Sudhir, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):
1. The Petitioner seeks directions to the Respondents for grant of ex-
gratia compensation of INR 1 Crore, as per Cabinet Decision No. 2835
dated 13th May, 2020. This claim arises from the untimely demise of her
mother Late Mrs. Seema Khan, an Anganwadi worker who succumbed to
COVID-19 on 17th April, 2021, when the pandemic was at its peak. The
Petitioner contends that her mother work of distributing ration and
participating in immunisation camps which qualified as essential services
and falls within the ambit of COVID-19 related duties as provided in the
Cabinet Decision. The Respondents have although rejected this claim,
stating that Mrs. Khan's though essential did not meet the criteria as defined
in the policy. Aggrieved by this decision, the Petitioner has invoked Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The facts leading up to the filing of the
present petition are as follows:
2. The Petitioner's mother - Late Mrs. Seema Khan was appointed as
the Anganwadi worker in 1982. During the peak of the COVID-19
pandemic in March, 2021, she carried out her duties of distribution of
'Supplementary Nutritional Food'1 as an Anganwadi worker under
Anganwadi Centre2 No. 95 in Delhi.
2.1 On 25th March, 2021, also undertook door to door distribution of
'Take Home Ration', in accordance with relevant guidelines. Thereafter,
under the aegis of the Child & Development Project i.e. Integrated Child
Development Services3, Project Jama Masjid organised an immunization
camp for children in AWC from 27th to 29th March 2021, wherein Late Mrs.
Seema provided her services on 27th March, 2021, in collaboration with
Auxiliary Nurse Midwives4.
2.2 The Petitioner states that her mother actively participated in both the
immunization camp and the distribution of essential supplies, fulfilling her
role as an Anganwadi worker during the height of the COVID-19 crisis.
Unfortunately, Late Mrs. Seema contracted COVID-19 infection and tested
positive for the COVID-19 RTPCR test on 6th April, 2021. Despite being
admitted to the emergency ward at Lok Nayak Hospital on 7th April, 2021,
Mrs. Seema Khan succumbed to the infection on 17th April, 2021 and the
primary cause of her death was held to be the COVID-19 infection.
"SNF"
"AWC"
"ICDS"
"ANMs"
2.3 In light of the above, the Petitioner asserts that as a legal heir of her
mother, she is entitled to receive the ex-gratia compensation awarded to the
family members of employees as per Cabinet Decision No. 2835 of GNCTD
dated 13th May, 2020, which reads as follows:
"GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
(CO-ORDINATION BRANCH)
DELHI SECRETARIAT, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI
No. F.03/07/2020/GAD/CN/dsgadiii/458-469 Dated: 13.05.2020
TABLED ITEM
CABINET DECISION NO. 2835 DATED 13.05.2020
Subject: Cabinet Note regarding awarding compensation to family of employees who
die of the disease while on COVID 19 duty.
Decision: The Counsil of Ministers considered the note of Minister (H&FW) and
approved that any person including Doctor, Nurse, Paramedical Staff,
Security/Sanitation staff or any other Govt. Officers/Official, including Police
Officer/Official, whether temporary or permanent employees or contractual, in
Government of Private Sector, deployed for COVID-19 duties by Government of NCT of
Delhi, if expires by contracting the disease during discharge of his/her duty, his/her
family shall be paid an ex-gratia amount of Rupees One Crore, posthumously.
The concerned Department/Agency, where the person was employed, will
submit the case with their recommendations, enclosing the report of Death Audit
Committee and report of Medical Superintendent/In-charge of the Hospital/ Medical
Institution to Revenue Department, GNCTD for further processing for payment of the
ex-gratia and same shall be put up to Minister (Health), through Minister (Revenue),
for the approval of Hon'ble Chief Minister. After approval of Hon'ble Chief Minister
ex-gratia amount will be paid by Revenue Department to bona fide beneficiary from
Major Head 2235- 60-200-62-00-50-other charges.
Sd/-
(Vijay Kumar Dav)
Secretary to Cabinet"
2.4. In accordance with the above Cabinet Decision, the Petitioner
submitted an application to the MLA of Chandni Chowk, Sh. Parlad Singh
Sawhney, to claim the ex-gratia payment, providing all requisite documents.
The application was subsequently placed before the Group of Ministers5 in a
meeting held on 13th September, 2023. However, as recorded in the Minutes
of Meeting dated 26th September, 2023, the request for ex-gratia
compensation to the family of Late Mrs. Seema Khan was denied. The GoM
observed that, although Mrs. Khan's role as an Anganwadi worker involved
essential services, it was limited to routine duties and did not qualify as
COVID-19 duty or COVID-19-related duties such as treatment, facilitation,
or care of COVID-19 patients.
3. Counsel for Petitioner argues that the mother of the Petitioner, Late
Mrs. Seema Khan provided critical services when COVID-19 was at its
peak. The Petitioner's mother was distributing door to door rations,
supplementary nutritional food and participating in organised immunization
camps for children, as per the directions and guidelines issued by the
Department of Women and Child Development, GNCTD6. The Counsel
contends that these activities constitute essential services, as classified by
the Department's order dated 20th March, 2020, which explicitly listed
Anganwadi services under "essential services." Moreover, even though
through this order, it was directed that field visits were to be minimized, yet
Mrs. Seema Khan continued to serve actively, distributing 'Take Home
Ration' and participating in the immunization camp.
4. The Counsel further urges that the immunization services provided by
Anganwadi workers were essential services during COVID-19, as they
involved distribution of ration to children as well as pregnant and lactating
mothers. He argues that the Petitioner's mother was directed to perform
"GoM"
"Department"
these services exposing herself to the risk of infection--something she
would not have done but for the assurances provided by the Government. He
submits that her death due to COVID-19 infection, is established from the
medical records. Therefore, the Respondent's decision to deny the
compensation to her family, is completely arbitrary and unreasonable.
5. Moreover, he submits that the Respondent has failed to appreciate that
the pandemic was an unprecedented situation which devastated the lives of a
number of families, including that of the Petitioner. He highlights that the
Petitioner, who is unmarried and unemployed, has no source of income and
tragically has lost both her parents by the age of 22. These circumstances, he
argues, warranted a more compassionate approach from the Respondents.
He submits that the case of Late Mrs. Seema Khan deserved empathetic
consideration, particularly given her service during the pandemic, and that
the ex-gratia compensation ought to have been granted to support her
bereaved family.
6. The Court has carefully examined the submissions and evidence
presented. While the facts narrated are undeniably moving and evoke
sympathy for the Petitioner's circumstances, the Court finds itself unable to
agree with the Petitioner's claim for ex-gratia compensation. The decision
impugned in this writ petition was rendered by the GoM after deliberations
in their meeting held on 13th September, 2023. This decision specifically
examined the applicability of the Cabinet Decision No. 2835 dated 13th May,
2020, which announced ex-gratia compensation of INR 1 Crore to the
families of employees deployed for COVID-19 duties by the GNCTD and
who succumbed to the disease during the discharge of their duties. In the
Petitioner's case, the GoM concluded that Late Mrs. Seema Khan's role,
while undeniably valuable and classified under "essential services," did not
qualify as COVID-19 duty or COVID-related duty as envisaged under the
Cabinet Decision. The minutes of the meeting reflect a clear distinction
between routine essential duties, such as those performed by Anganwadi
workers, and specific COVID-19 related responsibilities involving
treatment, facilitation, or care of COVID-19 patients. The GoM noted that
Mrs. Seema Khan was neither deployed in a containment zone nor involved
in patient care or specialized COVID-19 relief work. Rather, her
contributions, though significant in the broader public service framework,
did not met the parameters set under the Cabinet Decision for ex-gratia
compensation eligibility. The said decision is as follows:
"64 Name and Smt. Seema Khan The Group of Minister was
designation Aanganwadi Worker of the considered view that
of the case NOT covered
deceased under Cabinet Decision No.
2835 dated 13.05.2020 due
to reason that the deceased
was performing his routine
duty as a Aanganwadi
Worker which though may
be covered as an essential
service, however, it is in no
way on Covid duty or even
Covid related duties
involving treatment,
facilities or case of Covid
patient. He was not
performing specific duties
like patient care duties/duty
in any containment zone
during COVID- 19
pandemic /working in
COVID designated
hospital/ special COVID
relief work.
Department Department of Women
& Child Development.
Place of Duty Integrated Child
Development Scheme,
Centre No. 95 Chitla
Cate, Jamd Masjid,
Delhi.
Order The case was placed
regarding before the GoM in the
assignment of meeting held on
COVID 13.01.2023 and GoM
related duties was of the view that
before taking a final
view in the matter, the
case may be re-
examined with wider
prospective keeping in
view the deployment by
GNCT of Delhi for
COVID related duties,
nature of duties
performed by the
deceased, place of her
deployment and degree
of associated risk of
contracting the
COVIC-19 during
discharge of her duties.
After the examination,
the matter shall be
placed in the next
meeting of the GoM.
The case has been
reexamined. The brief
facts of the case are as
under: As per the
certificate dated
24.03.2022 issued by
CDPO, Jama Masjid
Project, "Mrs.. Seema
Khan, Aanganwadi
has performed her duty
till 31.03.2021 during
the COVID- 19
pandemic. She has
distributed door to
door THR on
25.03.2021 as per
guidelines issued by the
WCO HQ and
organized
immunization camp for
children at her centre
on 27.03.2021 in the
collaboration of ANM
of the area. Copy of
THR distribution
schedule and Photos is
attached for your kind
consideration." As per
the certificate dated
10.10.2012 issued by
DDO/HOO/CDPO.
ICDS Jama Masjid
Project, "Seema Khan
who was working in
ICDS Jama Masjid has
performed her last duty
on 31.03.2021. There
was an immunization
camp held for children
at her AWC on
27.03.2021, 28.03.2021
& 29.03.2021 being
gazetted holidays, she
was on leave on
30.03.2021 informing
telephonically that she
was not well and she
could not attend the
AWC/office. She has
attended duty on
31.03.2021 but left
AWC early after
submitting monthly
reports and other
documents by
informing that she was
having fever and
breathing problems.
After that she didn't
reported in AWC for
duty. "She was on leave
wef 01.04.2021 due to
her illness as per
telephonic message
received from her."
Last Duty 31.03.2021
performed
Date if covid 06.04.2021
positive
Date of death 17.04.2021"
[Emphasis added]
7. As can be seen from the above, the GoM duly considered the
Petitioner's case along with all relevant facts, but came to the conclusion
that the Petitioner's mother was performing her routine duties as an
Anganwadi worker which, even though may be covered as an essential
service, are not connected with 'COVID-19 duty' or even 'COVID-19
related duties' which involved services in treatment facilities or handling of
cases of patients who contracted COVID-19.
8. It is pertinent to note that as reflected from the minutes of meeting,
even though the GoM noted that COVID-19 management also involved
vaccinations or distribution of ration to people, it was considered special
COVID-19 duty only when the distribution was directed to be done through
special distribution centres established by the Government or enforcement in
containment zones and for the staff specifically deployed for this purpose by
an order of the Government.
9. The Cabinet Decision explicitly provides that ex-gratia compensation
of INR 1 Crore is to be awarded to families of employees who succumbed to
COVID-19 while performing duties specifically related to COVID-19, such
as patient care, facilitation, or deployment in containment zones or COVID
designated hospitals/distribution centres.
10. The policy was drafted to recognize the extraordinary risks faced by
individuals engaged in such high-risk duties. Undoubtedly, as an Anganwadi
worker, Petitioner's mother provided vital services distribution of nutritional
food and ration for children and new mothers, yet her services do not meet
the narrowly defined criteria, for grant of ex-gratia compensation under the
Cabinet Decision No. 2835 of GNCTD dated 13th May, 2020. The decision
of the GoM is based on distinction between "essential services" and the
"COVID-specific duties" envisaged by the Cabinet Decision. Anganwadi
services, while critical to public welfare, can be categorized as essential
services in the broader sense, but were not linked to the direct handling of
COVID-19 cases, containment measures, or relief efforts specific to the
pandemic such as distribution through special designated distribution
centres. Furthermore, the mother of the Petitioner was not deployed for such
special duties by an order of the Government.
11. In light of the above, the Court finds that the decision-making process
followed by the GoM was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. The GoM
considered the detailed submissions made by the Petitioner and examined
supporting documents, including the nature of Late Mrs. Seema Khan's
duties and her deployment during the pandemic. The conclusion that her
role, while essential, did not entail the heightened risk envisaged under the
policy, is based on cogent reasoning and aligns with the object of the ex-
gratia scheme.
12. Ex-gratia payments are discretionary and not a matter of right. They
are granted as a compassionate gesture in extraordinary circumstances,
subject to the specific terms and conditions outlined in the governing policy.
Thus, while the Court is empathetic to the Petitioner's loss, it cannot
overlook the object and intent of the policy. Moreover, the Court in the
exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution can only ensure
adherence to the policy and cannot to expand the scope in a manner that
overrides the intent behind the policy. Expanding the scope of the ex-gratia
scheme beyond its intended parameters risks setting a precedent that could
lead to unintended misapplications. Accordingly, the Court is not inclined to
invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India to intervene in this matter.
13. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed along with pending
application(s).
SANJEEV NARULA, J
NOVEMBER 12, 2024
as
