# Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 841
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-11
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 41066 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar, Mrs. Garima Prashad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajay-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54809
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

3 All. Ajay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
841
benefit of a welfare scheme in these circumstances would amount to a travesty of justice,
particularly when the delay is clearly attributable to administrative lapses rather than any fault of
the claimant. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the negligence or inaction of the
authorities.

28. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court holds that the claim of the
petitioner was within the permissible period and the impugned order rejecting the claim on the
ground of limitation is unsustainable.

29. The impugned order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2, District
Magistrate, Ballia, rejecting the petitioners claim under the "Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna
Kalyan Yojana" is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the District Magistrate, Ballia, to
reconsider the petitioners claim afresh on merits in accordance with law and in the light of the
observations made hereinabove. The said exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably
within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

30. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 841
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. GARIMA PRASHAD, J.

Writ C No. 41066 of 2023

Ajay Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Matter pertains to whether respondent authorities were justified in rejecting the claim of the
petitioner for ex gratia compensation on account of death of his wife allegedly due to Covid-19
while performing election duty, on the ground that no material was produced to establish Covid19 infection or death due to Covid-19 within the meaning of Government Order dated
01.06.2021.
HEADNOTE
Constitution of India - Art.226 - Ex gratia compensation - Government Order dated 01.06.2021
- Petitioner's wife, working as Assistant Teacher in a basic school, was allotted election duty on
07.04.2021 - Petitioner alleged that while going for election duty she suffered Covid-19
infection and ultimately died on 27.04.2021 after being admitted to hospital - Claim for ex gratia
842 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compensation rejected by District Magistrate on ground that no material was produced to
establish that deceased was infected with Covid-19 or that death occurred due to Covid-19 -
Petitioner contended that in view of Government Order dated 01.06.2021 it was not necessary to
have positive RTPCR report or Antigen report and since Covid pandemic was prevailing at
relevant time, death ought to be treated as Covid death - Impugned rejection order challenged
in writ jurisdiction - Justification:
Held: A complete scheme was floated by the State Government vide government order dated 01.06.2021 for
ex gratia compensation. Clause 9 of Government Order dated 01.06.2021 specifically provides for kind of
documents required to be placed before authority while claim for ex gratia compensation is set up - Three
things were required, namely, grade of infection of Covid-19, test report regarding positive Covid-19 and date
of death due to Covid-19 - Party setting up claim for ex gratia compensation on ground that deceased died
due to Covid-19 was to place a proved case of Covid infection by a test report or Covid death certificate - In
event no death certificate was available, date when deceased was found Covid positive was required so as to
co-relate it with period of 30 days. Claimant must establish case of Covid infection qua victim by placing test
reports or must have a Covid death certificate to rely upon. - In present case, no document was ever placed
before authority to demonstrate that deceased died due to Covid-19 or that deceased was already suffering
from pandemic Covid-19 - Chest report relied upon by petitioner clearly recorded that Bilateral pleural effusion
(left>right) with adjacent passive atelectasis are suggestive of infective etiology which was inconsistent for
Covid-19 infection - Authorities therefore rightly rejected claim - Writ petition dismissed. (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Kusum Lata Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 others, Writ - C No. 28249 of 2021;
Sadhna Sahu v. Union of India and 5 others, Writ - C No. 20071 of 2024;

List of Acts
Constitution of India
List of Keywords
Ex gratia compensation; Covid-19 infection; Election duty; Assistant Teacher; RTPCR report; Antigen report;
Covid death certificate; Symptomatic cases; Asymptomatic cases; Pandemic Covid-19; Chest report; Pleural
effusion; Government Order dated 01.06.2021; Proven Covid death; Covid positive report.
CASE ARISING FROM
From the order dated 04.09.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Firozabad rejecting petitioner's claim for
ex gratia compensation on account of death of petitioner's wife allegedly due to Covid-19.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner: Neeraj Shukla
Advs. for the Respondents: C.S.C., Suresh Kumar Maurya
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.
&
Hon'ble Mrs. Garima Prashad, J.)
3 All. Ajay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
843

1. Heard Sri Neeraj Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Suresh Kumar Maurya,
learned counsel for the respondent No.- 3 and Sri P.K. Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the State respondents.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has
questioned the validity of the order dated 4th September, 2023 passed by the District Magistrate,
Firozabad, whereby claim of the petitioner for ex gracia compensation for his wife dying of covid-
19 has come to be rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents has manifestly
erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for ex gracia compensation for the reasons that the
Government order in that regard has not been correctly interpreted to hold that the petitioner's wife
did not dye of covid- 19. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's wife
was working as Assistant Teacher in a basic school while she was allotted election duty on 7th
April, 2021 while going for duty she suffered Covid-19 and ultimately when her condition worsen
she was taken to the hospital on 27th April, 2021 but she could not survive and met untimely death
on that date itself.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the chest report of the
petitioner's wife was available on record and according to which no abnormality otherwise was
seen which could have been said to be a cause of death and, therefore, since covid pandemic 19
was prevailing in those days it should be taken a death of Covid-19 only. It is further contended by
learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the Government order dated 1st June, 2021 it was
not necessary for one to have obtained positive RTPCR report or Antigen report and therefore, in
the circumstances, if death takes places within 30 days of the infection or otherwise, such a patient
being admitted to the hospital such death should be taken as a death due to covid and such cases,
therefore, should be taken to be covered within the meaning as assigned to covid patient under the
Government order dated 1st June, 2021.

5. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court to the
relevant provisions of the Government order as contained in clause -9, 10 and 12.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon two authorities of this Court, one
in the case of Kusum Lata Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 others being Writ - C No.- 28249 of
2021 along with connected matters decided on 25th July, 2022 and another judgment of a
coordinate Bench in the case of Sadhna Sahu v. Union of India and 5 others being Writ - C No.-
20071 of 2024 decided on 23rd July, 2024. In respect of the judgment in the case of Kusum Lata
Yadav (supra), the petitioner has placed reliance upon paragraph 17 of judgment, which is
reproduced hereunder:

 "17. Having regard to the three parameters provided in para-12, this Court would note
that any case detected beyond the period of 30 days from election duty as covid positive is certainly
a category not covered under the scheme. The death of asymptomatic cases within 30 days of
election duty as per the mandate of government order is covered under the G.O. Provided the death
certificate on account of COVID-19 is produced by the claimants. This principle broadens the
844 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
scope of G.O. for symptomatic cases where the infection after election duty was detected within 30
days, however, death in such a case occurred beyond the period of 30 days. The two situations that
deserve to be treated at par are; firstly, where the death occurred due to covid-19 within a period
of 30 days of participation in election duty in an asymptomatic case and; secondly, where the
infection of COVID-19 was detected within 30 days of election duty but the death occurred
thereafter during treatment or otherwise."

(emphasis added)

7. In respect of judgment in the case of Sadhna Sahu (supra), learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance upon paragraphs 4, 6 & 7 of judgment which is reproduced
hereunder:

 4. The beneficial schemes provided by the Government are not to be read in a technical
manner and are required to be looked in a holistic manner. The relevant portion of the order
dated 28.03.2020 is provided below:-

 "i. It will be a comprehensive personal accident cover of Rs. 50 lakh for ninety (90) days
to a total of around 22.12 lakh public healthcare providers, including community health workers,
who may have to be in direct contact and care of COVID-19 patients and who may be at risk of
being impacted by this. It will also include accidental loss of life on account of contracting COVID19."

 6. Reliance may be placed on the Delhi High Court judgment in Sangeeta Wahi -v-
Union of India and others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6808. The ratio of the said
judgment is provided below:-

 "8. Covid-19 Pandemic struck the country in March, 2020. Lakhs of persons lost their
lives in the Pandemic. Police officials, healthcare workers, Doctors, Paramedics, etc. were braving
the Pandemic and were in the line of duty to provide assistance to persons who fell victims to the
life taking virus. Concerns had been raised regarding the country's healthcare system and its
capacity to cope with the massive outbreak. Doctors, nurses, paramedical staff, including security
staff in various hospitals, were working day and night to streamline the patients to ensure that the
patients are screened at the earliest and are quarantined so that the virus does not spread. Persons
who were affected by any fever were in a state of panic and not knowing what is to be done, they
were rushing to hospitals not knowing where to go and whom to meet. People were crowding
OPDs and the causality in the hospital to get themselves screened. At this juncture, it was these
security guards, paramedical staff, who not only to ensured the safety of the hospitals but were also
acting as guides by directing the patients to approach the correct centre. It, therefore, cannot be
said that the security guards who were posted at various places were not in direct contact of Covid19 patients. It is well known that Covid-19 virus spread through air and any patient who was
coming to the hospital could have been infected by the virus, whether he/she was symptomatic or
not. The patients got in touch with many service providers, be it security guards, nurses,
paramedical staff, who might or might not have been posted in the Covid-19 ward. The Central
Government, therefore, cannot take such a narrow approach that only such persons who were
3 All. Ajay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
845
posted in the Covid-19 ward or centre only will be covered by the "Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan
Package: Insurance scheme for health workers fighting COVID-19". The Scheme was actually
brought out as a measure to benefit the family members of persons who became martyrs in the line
of duty while protecting thousands of persons affected by Covid-19 Pandemic. Taking such a
narrow view actually goes against the spirit of the Scheme which was meant to provide immediate
relief to persons who were tackling the situation and were protecting the lives of thousands of
patients. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that any person having mildest of the
symptoms of Covid-19 was getting himself/herself tested. Poor people who could not afford private
testing centres were rushing to the Government hospitals. A normal person would never know that
there is a special Covid- 19 ward and his normal reaction would be to approach either the OPD
desk or the casualty of the hospital to meet the Doctor. At that point of time, to streamline the
queue, the services of the security guards were availed. The security guards were also directing the
people to the Departments where the patients have to approach in order to get themselves treated.
It, therefore, cannot be said that the late husband of the Petitioner herein, who died of Covid-19
which he may have contracted in the Hospital, was not in direct contact with the Covid-19 patients.

 9. The Scheme has been brought out as a social welfare scheme and application of such
schemes are not to be put in Procrustean beds or shrunk to Liliputian dimensions. Welfare Schemes
must necessarily receive a broad interpretation. Where Scheme is designed to give relief, the Court
should not be inclined to make etymological excursions [refer: Workmen v. American Express
International Banking Corpn., (1985) 4 SCC 71].

 10. The Apex Court in Regl. Provident Fund Commr. v. Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd., (2012) 2
SCC 489, has observed as under:

 "24. If we look at the modern legislative trend we will discern that there is a large volume
of legislation enacted with the purpose of introducing social reform by improving the conditions of
certain class of persons who might not have been fairly treated in the past. These statutes are
normally called remedial statutes or social welfare legislation, whereas penal statutes are
sometime enacted providing for penalties for disobedience of laws making those who disobey,
liable to imprisonment, fine, forfeiture or other penalty.

 25. The normal canon of interpretation is that a remedial statute receives liberal
construction whereas a penal statute calls for strict construction. In the cases of remedial statutes,
if there is any doubt, the same is resolved in favour of the class of persons for whose benefit the
statute is enacted, but in cases of penal statutes if there is any doubt the same is normally resolved
in favour of the alleged offender.

 26. It is no doubt true that the said Act effectuates the economic message of the
Constitution as articulated in the directive principles of State policy. Under the directive principles
the State has the obligation for securing just and humane conditions of work which includes a
living wage and decent standard of life. The said Act obviously seeks to promote those goals.
Therefore, the interpretation of the said Act must not only be liberal but it must be informed by the
values of the directive principles. Therefore, an awareness of the social perspective of the Act must
guide the interpretative process of the legislative device."
846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 11. In view of the above, the narrow and pedantic stand taken by the Central Government
cannot be accepted and the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of "Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan
Package: Insurance scheme for health workers fighting COVID-19".

 7. Keeping in view the above judgment, we are of the view that the present case is very
much covered by 'Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package : Insurance Scheme for Health
Workers Fighting COVID-19' as the petitioner's husband was a Ward Boy working in the
O.P.D. that was just opposite the Covid Section. The pedantic view taken by the authorities is
without application of mind that too with narrow interpretation of the said Scheme. Such an
interpretation would be wholly contrary to the intention of the said Scheme."

(emphasis added)

8. Per contra, meeting the above arguments, Sri P.K. Shahi, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State respondents has defended the order for the reasons assigned therein
and submitted that a very exhaustive order has been passed giving valid reasons for rejecting the
claim of the petitioner's wife on the ground that petitioner could not place any material before the
authority so as to draw any inference that petitioner?s wife was suffering from pandemic Covid-19
and died of Covid 19. Placing the Government order dated 1st June, 2021 and those very clauses as
9, 10 and 12, it is submitted by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that three documents
were required necessarily to be placed before the authority in order to set up a valid claim for ex
gratia compensation; firstly, specific date of infection of Covid-19, the date of test report regarding
a person being covid positive and thirdly, a certificate that the death of patient being found positive
covid 19. It is submitted that clause 10 the Government order further explains away the
circumstances in which it could be possible that RTPCR report and Antigen report may not be
positive and, therefore, the blood test report should be relied upon. He further submits that as far as
the death is concerned if the cause is established that if a patient was found to be positive Covid 19
on a particular date and may be subsequently the report is not found further to be positive but the
death takes place within 30 days of the first infection test report then such death should be taken to
be death due to Covid 19 and in those case ex gratia compensation can be made.

9. It is submitted by Mr. Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that in the
present case petitioner has not been able to place any material before the authority that at any point
of time his wife suffered pandemic Covid 19. He submitted that no test report much less a blood
test report was ever placed. He further submitted that medical test report of chest that has been
relied upon by the petitioner and has been brought on record vide Annexure - 8 to the petition,
clearly records final opinion at the end of the report at page 48 of the writ petition that 'Bilateral
pleural effusion (left>right) with adjacent passive atelectasis are suggestive of infective etiology
which is inconsistent for Covid-19 infection'. Thus according to him this report cannot be relied
upon for the purposes of claim as set up by the petitioner that he was entitled for ex gratia
compensation due to his wife dying of covid 19. He thus submits that writ petition is devoid of
merits and, therefore deserves to be dismissed.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records,
the only point that arises for our consideration as to whether the respondent District Magistrate was
3 All. Ajay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
847
justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner by correctly interpreting the provisions as contained
in various clauses of the Government order.

11. There is no quarrel between the parties that before the District Magistrate while claim
of ex gratia compensation was set up, no documents was placed by the petitioner evidencing the
factum of infection of Covid 19 in respect of his wife who died on the day she was admitted to the
hospital. Now, in such circumstances, therefore, it is to be seen whether such claim can still be
considered because the patient died when the entire State was badly infected by pandemic Covid
19.

12. A complete scheme has been floated by the State Government vide government order
dated 1st June, 2021 for ex gratia compensation and the clauses very specifically provide for kind
of documents that are required to be placed before the authority while the claim of ex gratia
compensation is set up. Vide clause 9, three documents are required like grade of infection of
Covid 19, test report regarding positive Covid 19 and date of death of a person due to covid 19.

13. In our considered view, this clause 9 is to be read with clause 10 and clause 11 together
and if three clauses are read together then conjoined reading of these provisions will lead us to
conclude that a party who sets up a claim in respect of a deceased person for ex gratia
compensation on the ground that deceased died due to covid 19, it should place a proved case of
covid infection by a test report or a covid death certificate or in the event no death certificate is
available of such nature then it is the date when the deceased was found to be positive covid 19 so
as to co-relate it with a period of 30 days. In case the chest report showing the patient to be covid
19 is not available then the date of infection of covid 19 should be shown though blood test or swab
test report.

14. In these circumstances, therefore, eventually if a deceased has become victim of covid
19 and dies within a period of 30 days of the date of first infection of covid 19 or the first report
that the patient had suffered covid 19, a death certificate may not be required. The RTPCR report
and Antigen negative test report would hardly matter in the event a death certificate is available to
show that a person died due to covid 19. Thus, in a case where a person carries a certificate that the
patient died due to covid 19, he may not be in possession of a positive test report. In that
circumstances also such claim of compensation can be allowed.

15. In case in hand, we do not find there to be any such above document ever placed before
the authority to demonstrate that a patient died due to covid 19 or that patient while died was
already suffering from pandemic covid 19.

16. The judgment that has been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case
of Kusum Lata Yadav (supra), it was dealing with the issue when a defence was sought to be drawn
in the general perception of people regarding asymptomatic and symptomatic cases of covid 19 and
the question was whether any symptomatic condition was there when an infected person contacted
infection within 30 days of joining duty but died after 30 days of such infection.
848 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
17. The question was also with regard to the parameters laid down in paragraph 12 and the
Court was considering as to whether a case detected beyond the period of 30 days from the election
duty as covid 19 positive would fall within that category, not covered under the scheme.

18. In our considered view, in the above case this issue of established or not established
cases of covid 19 did not arise. Paragraph 17 that has been relied upon refers to the cases where
there was established case of detected covid 19 infected person who died within 30 days and the
court held that two situations were to be placed at par where the death had occurred due to covid 19
within a period 30 days of participation in election duty in a symptomatic case and secondly where
the infection of covid 19 was detected within a period of 30 days of election duty.

19. Thus, the Court was considering the cases where the person who died was in fact found
to be detected as infected covid 19 patient. Therefore, on fact the case is distinguishable.

20. Insofar as the case of Sadhna Sahu (supra) is concerned, the issue was whether the
case of the patient would be covered where the death of covid 19 victim took place on account of
infection though not specifically posted in the covid ward. The Court relies upon the judgment of
Delhi High Court wherein it was held that guards, nurses and paramedical staffs who might or
might not have been posted in the covid ward but if got infected by virus and died of covid, would
also be entitled to compensation under the scheme. It was also a case proven covid death.

21. We are clear that in the case in hand the claim has been rejected on the ground that
there was no material available on record to establish that it was the death of covid 19. Therefore,
the cases that have been relied upon are of no help to the petitioner.

22. A claimant must establish a case of covid infection qua the victim by placing test
reports or must have a covid death certificate to rely upon.

23. Thus, we do not find any merit in the case.

24. The writ petition is dismissed and is consigned to records.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 848
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 928 of 2026

Sunil Kumar Shukla ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent