Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kavita Mohade vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 October, 2025
1 WP-13292-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 10th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 13292 of 2024
SMT. KAVITA MOHADE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Utkarsh Agrawal (through V.C.) and Shri Atul Khare - Advocate
for petitioner.
Shri Hitendra Singh - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
By way of this petition, challenge is made to order Annexure P-5 dated
31.08.2021 whereby the respondents have refused to grant benefit of Chief
Minister Covid-19 Compassionate Appointment Scheme to the petitioner on
the ground that as per the verification received from the office of Collector,
District Amrawati (Maharashtra), it has been reported that there is no
conclusive evidence of deceased husband of petitioner having been Covid-19
positive on the date of his death.
2. The counsel for petitioner has relied on various medical documents to
argue that the husband of the petitioner who was indeed suffering from
Covid-19, has expired on 22.04.2021 in an Hospital which was a designated
Covid centre and as per the medical certificate issued by the said Hospital, he
expired due to the respiratory failure on account of Covid-19 pneumonia.
2 WP-13292-2024
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently supported the
order on the ground that once the Collector, District Amrawati where the
hospital was situated has refused to verify that petitioner's husband expired
due to Covid-19 infection, therefore, the petitioner cannot seek benefit of the
compassionate scheme.
4. Upon hearing the rival parties, it is seen that the Collector, District
Amrawati has written a letter to the Collector, District Betul dated
27.08.2021 mentioning therein that the husband of petitioner was admitted at
a covid hospital at Paratwada, District Amrawati from 18.04.2021 to
22.04.2021 but as per antigen test report available on ICMR Portal under ID
No.B1322 there is no conclusive finding of the deceased being Covid-19
positive. Further, upon examination of SRF ID of RTPCR test report also, no
entry of the name of deceased husband of the petitioner was found and on
that ground it has been opined that the deceased did not die of Covid-19
infection.
5. The documents placed on record by the petitioner do place on record that
RAT test of the deceased was carried out at Bhansali Multispecialty Hospital
and there is report of the patient being positive with sensitivity of 85%. This
report is dated 19.04.2021. The CRP value of the said patient was also highly
elevated and HRCT was also carried out on 18.04.2021 as per which the
score of 16 out of 25 was assessed. The score of more than 15 in HRCT is
treated to be severe infection and even the observation in HRCT test report
mentions that there are multiple patchy areas of parenchymal ground glass
opacities in bilateral lungs and CT imaging finding multi-focal viral
3 WP-13292-2024
interstitial pneumonia having progressive stages. There is nothing on record
that the said HRCT report is forged or fabricated.
6. The issue has been dealt with by the coordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of Leela Surana vs. State of M.P. and others in W.P. No.15662/2021
as under:-
"From the record, there is not denying the fact that the
petitioner's daughter was not put through RTPCR test, however,
her C.T. Scan test reports are available on record in which she is
said to have suffered from severe Covid-19 as her CORADS Grade
is said to be 5 which is as per CORADS Grade classification, has a
very high level of suspicion of typical Covid19. Two such C.T.
Scan reports have been placed on record.
It is also found that the other family members of the petitioner,
including herself, also suffered from Covid-19 and got their
RTPCR test done. On the other hand, in the reply filed by the
respondents, there is not a whisper regarding the CT-Scan test
which the petitioner's daughter got done and in which her
CORADS Grade is said to be 5 which is as per CORADS Grade
classification, has a very high level of suspicion of typical Covid-
19 and as such there is no denial of the respondents about the said
CT-Scan reports which demonstrate that the daughter of the
petitioner did suffer from severe Covid-19. The respondents could
also have produced the opinion of an expert Doctor or of the
Medical Board that the documents filed by the petitioner are not
sufficient to hold that her daughter did not suffer from Covid-19
but no such exercise has been undertaken by the respondents.
In such circumstances, without going into the virus of clause 4.1
of the Scheme, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the
light of the C.T. Scan report placed on record, demonstrating the
fact that the daughter of the petitioner suffered from very high
Covid-19, merely because the RTPCR tests were not conducted,
the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of the Scheme. It is true
that the State Government must have formulated the Scheme
taking into account the various factors involved relating to the
Covid-19, but under the attending circumstances, merely because
one particular test i.e., RT-PCR was not conducted by the
petitioner's daughter, she cannot be denied the benefit of the
Scheme when otherwise there is ample, unrebutted evidence on
record to prove that she indeed died of Covid-19 only.
Resultantly, the impugned order dated 09.08.2021 cannot be
sustained on the anvil of the factual scenario as aforesaid, and the
same is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to grant the
benefit of the Scheme to the petitioner, who is a widow, aged
around 79 years and has lost her daughter aged 44 years. Let the
4 WP-13292-2024
said exercise be completed within a period one month from the
date of receipt of the certified copy of this order."
7. The aforesaid judgment has been followed by another coordinate Bench
of this Court in W.P. No.27142/2021 as well as in W.P. No.11373/2024 and
it has been held that in absence of RTPCR test report, the HRCT score can
be looked into unless it is indicated that the HRCT report is frivolous or
forged.
8. In view of the above, the impugned rejection order Annexure P-5 dated
31.08.2021 is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of
petitioner under Chief Minister Covid-19 Compassionate Appointment
Scheme on merits while treating the case to be of Covid-19 death. Let the
consideration be made within 45 days and consequential orders be passed.
9. Petition stands allowed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
psm
