State must act with sensitivity towards those who have suffered and must not allow procedural rigidity to eclipse substantive justice, asserted the Bombay High Court (Kolhapur Bench) while emphasising that the monetary benefits granted through a generous interpretation of the Government Resolution (GR) provide tangible relief to those families who suffered while serving covid-pandemic assistance, sends a powerful message of societal value placed on self-sacrifice and inspires future generations to act with similar courage when called upon in the wake of testing times.
The Court called it a moral and societal imperative to honour frontline covid workers and extend necessary support to their families, especially the heirs of those who lost their lives. Accordingly, the Court held that the denial or restriction of the relief of the insurance scheme introduced vide the GR dated 25th April 2022, to those who passed away after 30th June 2021, i.e., the cut-off date, would be contrary to the values of justice, fairness, and dignity which animate our constitutional order, and also contrary to public conscience and societal gratitude
Considering that the deceased was a frontline worker who contracted COVID-19 in the course of his official duties and ultimately lost his life while serving COVID-affected patients, the Division Bench comprising Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar observed that the claim made by his legal heirs under the GR dated 25th April 2022 cannot be examined with a narrow or technical approach.
The Bench pointed out that the insurance scheme is welfare-oriented and intended to support families of frontline workers who faced exceptional risks during the pandemic, and hence a liberal construction of the GR is required to ensure that the object behind issuing the said GR is fulfilled, providing some solace at least, as the loss of a family member can never be adequately compensated.
The Bench said that a humanitarian lens should be considered rather than adopting a rigid or technical approach to the insurance scheme, and denying such relief would be to do a disservice to the sacrifice made by the deceased in his fight against COVID-19. The GR’s must receive a broad and beneficial construction, as the deceased had admittedly contracted COVID before 30th June 2021.
The Bench therefore extended the benefit of the Covid Insurance Scheme to the legal heirs of the deceased, while concluding that the cut-off date, i.e., 30th June 2021, as set out in the GR dated 25th April 2022, cannot be regarded as sacrosanct.
Briefly, the petitioners are the heirs and legal representatives of one Yashwant Khandu Jadhav, the deceased, who was working as an Extension Officer with the Panchayat Samiti. In June 2021, the deceased contracted COVID-19 while discharging duty as a government servant and succumbed to death during treatment in the hospital. In the meantime, the State Government vide Resolution (GR) dated May 29, 2020, decided to give the benefit of the insurance scheme cover to the village panchayat employees who passed away while discharging their duties during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The petitioners claimed that the deceased, having discharged his duties as a Health Worker during COVID-19, is entitled to avail the benefits of the GR. Accordingly, they requested a recommendation for the grant of the benefit of insurance cover. The benefit was, however, denied, pointing out that the proposal for the benefit of insurance cover could not be accepted after the cut-off date mentioned in the GR.
Appearances:
Advocates K. D. Indapurkar, Vaibhav Gaikwad and Uday Nigot, for the Petitioners
Advocates V. M. Mali and Kedar P. Lad, for the Respondents
