# Smt. Premlata Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 1013
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-29
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 17575 of 2023
- **Bench:** Salil Kumar Rai, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-premlata-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50713
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 226 -
Government Order dated
11.04.2020 - Ex Gratia Compensation for
COVID-19 Death - Petitioner sought mandamus
for release of Rs. 50,00,000/- ex gratia
compensation for the death of her husband,
Head Constable Ashok Kumar Pandey, who
contracted COVID-19 while on duty at Civil
Airport, Gorakhpur, and died on 20.04.2021.
Petitioner contended that her husband was
enforcing COVID-19 protocols, supported by
duty certificates from the Superintendent of
Police and Chief Medical Officer, and forwarded
by the District Magistrate. Respondents argued
he was posted for security, not COVID-19
prevention, protection, or treatment, and the
Revenue Committee did not approve the
compensation. Court found that the husband
was involved in enforcing COVID-19 protocols,
as
verified
by
official
reports,
and
the
Government Order entitled dependents of
employees dying of COVID-19 while on such
duty to compensation. No artificial distinction
can be made among employees enforcing
COVID-19 protocols. Petitioner held entitled to
Rs. 50,00,000/- ex gratia compensation, to be
released within one month. Writ petition
allowed. (Paras 6-10)

Writ petition allowed.

## Text

9 All. Smt. Premlata Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1013
entitled to any legal character, or to any
right as to any property, may institute a suit
against any person denying or interested to
deny, his title to such character or right,
and the court may in its discretion make
therein a declaration that he is so entitled,
and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask
for any further relief:

Provided that no court shall make any
such declaration where the plaintiff, being
able to seek further relief than a mere
declaration of title, omits to do so."

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 is quoted herein-below:

"45. Opinions of experts.- When the
Court has to form an opinion upon a point
of foreign law or of science or art, or as to
identity
of
handwriting
[or
finger
impressions], the opinions upon that point
of persons specially skilled in such foreign
law, science or art, [or in questions as to
identity
of
handwriting]
[or
finger
impressions] are relevant facts.

Such persons are called experts."

34. Writ C Nos. 15412 of 2023 and
11662 of 2023 are, accordingly, dismissed
with the aforesaid liberty and Writ C No.
21573 of 2023 is allowed.

35. The orders dated 02.06.2023
passed by the Joint Director of Education,
Bhadohi and the District Inspector of
Schools, Bhadohi are hereby quashed.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 1013
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 17575 of 2023

Smt. Premlata Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sudhanshu Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 226 -
Government Order dated
11.04.2020 - Ex Gratia Compensation for
COVID-19 Death - Petitioner sought mandamus
for release of Rs. 50,00,000/- ex gratia
compensation for the death of her husband,
Head Constable Ashok Kumar Pandey, who
contracted COVID-19 while on duty at Civil
Airport, Gorakhpur, and died on 20.04.2021.
Petitioner contended that her husband was
enforcing COVID-19 protocols, supported by
duty certificates from the Superintendent of
Police and Chief Medical Officer, and forwarded
by the District Magistrate. Respondents argued
he was posted for security, not COVID-19
prevention, protection, or treatment, and the
Revenue Committee did not approve the
compensation. Court found that the husband
was involved in enforcing COVID-19 protocols,
as
verified
by
official
reports,
and
the
Government Order entitled dependents of
employees dying of COVID-19 while on such
duty to compensation. No artificial distinction
can be made among employees enforcing
COVID-19 protocols. Petitioner held entitled to
Rs. 50,00,000/- ex gratia compensation, to be
released within one month. Writ petition
allowed. (Paras 6-10)

Writ petition allowed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai, J.
& Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sudhanshu Pandey,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
1014 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
learned Standing Counsel for the State
respondents.

2. By means of the present petition,
the
petitioner
is
seeking
mandamus
directing the respondents to release ex
gratia compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- to
petitioner in pursuance to the Government
Order dated 11.4.2020 for the death of her
husband Late Ashok Kumar Pandey (Head
Constable, U.P. Police) due to COVID-19
while performing his duty.

3. Contention of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the husband of the
petitioner, Late Ashok Kumar Pandey, was
working as Head Constable in U.P. Police
at Maharajganj. By order dated 12.11.2020
of Additional Director General, Gorakhpur
Zone, Gorakhpur, U.P., he was posted at
Civil Airport Gorakhpur. In pursuance of
that order, husband of the petitioner had
joined the services at Civil Airport
Gorakhpur on 26.11.2020. While working
on duty at Civil Airport Gorakhpur, he felt
respiratory problem on 16.4.2021 and,
thereafter
on
conducting
medical
examination he was found corona positive
and subsequently, he died on 20.4.2021 due
to COVID-19. It is further submitted that
husband of the petitioner while working at
Civil Airport Gorakhpur, he was enforcing
COVID-19 protocol and involved in
prevention,
protection
and
treatment
operation
at
airport
for
COVID-19.
Therefore, as per Government Order dated
11.4.2020, the petitioner being the wife of
deceased Ashok Kumar Pandey submitted
an application for release of ex gratia
compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.

4. As per Government Order dated
11.4.2020, the required formalities were
completed and the duty certificate of
Superintendent
of
Police
(Head
of
Department) along with certificate of Chief
Medical Officer were also submitted. Thereafter,
the District Magistrate, Maharajganj being the
competent authority by letter dated 29.9.2021
forwarded the case of the petitioner to Additional
Chief Secretary, Revenue, Government of U.P.
for releasing Rs.50,00,000/- to the petitioner in
view of death of her husband, Late Ashok
Kumar Pandey. When no action was taken then
Superintendent of Police, Maharajganj again
wrote a letter dated 6.10.2021 to District
Magistrate, Maharajganj for ensuring release of
ex gratia compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the
petitioner for death of her husband, on duty. The
above letter dated 6.10.2021 of Superintendent
of Police, Maharajganj was followed by letter
dated
23.12.2021
of
Additional
District
Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Maharajganj
to the Secretary and Relief Commissioner of
Government of U.P. for releasing the ex gratia
amount to the petitioner. When no action was
taken then the present petition was filed.

5. This Court by the order dated
23.5.2023 directed the respondent No.1 to file
his personal affidavit explaining as to why the
ex gratia compensation was not released in
favour of the petitioner. In compliance of the
above order of this Court, personal affidavit
was filed by Sudhir Garg, Additional Chief
Secretary, Revenue, Government of U.P. in
which the stand was taken that husband of the
petitioner was posted at Civil Airport,
Gorakhpur on his request for the purpose of
security and not for prevention, protection and
treatment
of
COVID-19,
therefore,
considering
the
documents
and
report
forwarded
by
the
District
Magistrate,
Maharajganj, the committee headed by
Secretary, Revenue, Government of U.P. did
not approve the release of ex gratia amount of
Rs. 50,00,000/- to the petitioner.

6. In the report dated 28.12.2021 of
Inspector,
in
charge
Civil
Airport,
9 All. Smt. Premlata Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1015
Gorakhpur to Superintendent of Police,
Maharajganj, it is clearly mentioned that
the husband of the petitioner Late Ashok
Kumar Pandey remained posted there from
29.3.2021 to 18.4.2021 with corona test
team. Apart from this Superintendent of
Police, Maharajganj also in his letter dated
27.5.2021 as well as letter dated 6.10.2021
has clearly mentioned that husband of the
petitioner Late Ashok Kumar Pandey was
posted at Civil Airport, Gorakhpur for
prevention, protection and treatment of
COVID-19, therefore, the petitioner is
entitled for ex gratia compensation of
Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of her husband
Late Ashok Kumar Pandey on duty during
enforcement of COVID-19 protocol.

7. Per contra, the Standing Counsel
submitted that the husband of petitioner
Late Ashok Kumar Pandey was deputed at
Civil Airport Gorakhpur for the purpose of
security and not for prevention, protection
and treatment of COVID-19, therefore, the
petitioner is not entitled to ex gratia
compensation for the death of her husband,
Head Constable Late Ashok Kumar Pandey.

8. Considering the submission of the
parties and on perusal of record, we find
that in the report dated 29.9.2021 which
was forwarded by the District Magistrate,
Maharajganj to Additional Chief Secretary,
Revenue, Government of U.P., it was
clearly mentioned that being the Head of
Department of Head Constable Late Ashok
Kumar Pandey, the Superintendent of
Police, Maharajganj has duly verified his
duty for COVID-19 prevention, protection
and treatment. Similarly, the letter dated
28.12.2021 of Inspector, In-charge, Civil
Airport Gorakhpur to Superintendent of
Police, Maharajganj, clearly mentioned the
posting of husband of the petitioner from
29.3.2021 to 18.4.2021 for the purpose of
enforcement of COVID-19 protocol. From
the Government order dated 11.4.2020, it is
clear that any employee, working for
prevention, protection and treatment of
COVID-19, if dies during his duty then his
dependents will be entitled for ex gratia
compensation.
Relevant
extract
of
Government Order dated 11.4.2020 is being
quoted as below:-

"2. कोविि-१९ की रोकथाम, उपचार व
बचाव के लिए कार्यरत कालमयकों में कोविि-१९
के संक्रमण की आशंका सदैि बनी रर्ती र्ै ।
कोविि-१९ की रोकथाम, उपचार ि बचाि के
मलए कायहरत काममहक की कोविि-१९ के
संक्रमण से मृत्यु की दशा में उसके आधश्रतों को
सामाश्जक सुरक्षा देने के मलए राज्य सरकार
द्िारा उस मृतक के आधश्रतों को रु० 50.००
लाख की एकमुचत अनुग्रर् िनरामश स्िीकृनत
ककये जाने का ननणहय मलया गया र्ै ।"

9. Husband of the petitioner, Head
Constable Ashok Kumar Pandey while
working at Civil Airport Gorakhpur was
involved in enforcement of COVID-19
protocol by ensuring social distancing
among the passengers as well as forcing
them to undergo corona test. Admittedly,
there is no other force or employees except
the policemen at airport who are deputed
for this specific purpose. The State cannot
make artificial distinction among its
employees to depriving one class of
employees
from
getting
ex
gratia
compensation on their death despite the
fact that they had received corona infection
on duty during COVID-19 period. Every
policeman or other government empoyee
who has been discharging his duty during
COVID-19 period for enforcing COVID-19
1016 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
protocol will be deemed to be performing
duty for prevention and protection of
COVID-19 as mentioned in Government
Order dated 11.4.2020 and if he dies
because
of
corona
infection
during
discharge of his duty then his dependents
will be entitled to receive ex gratia
compensation as per Government Order
dated 11.4.2020.

10. In view of the above, husband of
the petitioner Late Ashok Kumar Pandey
(Head Constable) while working at Civil
Airport Gorakhpur was involved in the
duty
of
prevention,
protection
and
treatment of COVID-19, therefore, on his
death, the petitioner is entitled for ex gratia
compensation as per the Government order
dated 11.4.2020. The respondent No.1 is
directed
to
release
the
ex
gratia
compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- to the
petitioner within a period of one month
from today.

11. With the aforesaid direction, the
writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 1016
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Writ-C No. 18463 of 2023

Ramveer ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajnish Kumar, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226 - U.P. Minerals (Prevention of
Illegal
Mining,
Transportation
and
Storage) Rules, 2018 - Rule 12 - Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 207 -
Principles of Natural Justice - Petitioner
challenged the District Magistrate's order dated
25.02.2023, imposing financial liability for
royalty, penalty, and mineral price, and referring
the matter to the environmental pollution
department, after the seizure of his vehicle (UP
83 AU 1915) for alleged illegal mineral
transportation. The vehicle was initially seized
under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
and despite the Chief Judicial Magistrate's
release order on 07.02.2023, it was not
released. Petitioner argued that no show-cause
notice was issued before the impugned order,
violating natural justice. Respondents contended
that
the
petitioner
admitted
to
carrying
minerals, and Rules 12 and 72 of the U.P. Minor
Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021, did not
mandate a hearing. Court held that natural
justice principles, as established in A.K. Kraipak
and S.L. Kapoor, apply to administrative actions
with financial consequences, requiring a showcause notice and fair procedure, even if the
petitioner's application suggested an admission.
The vehicle seizure under the Motor Vehicles Act
and subsequent police reports limited the
petitioner's defense opportunity. Impugned
order
quashed,
vehicle
ordered
released
forthwith, with liberty to respondents to proceed
in accordance with law. (Paras 3, 7, 10-12)

Writ petition allowed.

List of Cases cited:

1. A.K. Kraipak & ors.Vs U.O.I.& ors., (1969) 2
SCC 262

2. Suresh Koshy George Vs The University of
Kerala & ors., Civil Appeal No. 990/68

3. Ranveer Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2017 (1)
ADJ 240

4. S.L. Kapoor Vs Jagmohan & ors., AIR 1981
SC 136