Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court set aside the Single Judge’s order and directed the Government of NCT of Delhi to release ex-gratia compensation of ₹1 crore to the appellant widow within eight weeks under the Cabinet decision dated 13.05.2020. The Court held:
“While examining applications under such beneficial policies, a narrow and pedantic view ought to be completely avoided.”
The Court found that the deceased, serving as Principal of an MCD school, was indeed deployed on COVID-19 related duties at the time of contracting the virus, as confirmed by official records and the Principal’s deployment letter.
Facts
The appellant’s husband joined GNCTD services in 1993 and at the time of his death was Principal of MCD Primary Boys’ School, Nithari. During the second COVID-19 wave in April 2021, the Education Department directed 100% attendance of Grade I officers and above, including Principals.
The appellant’s husband tested positive on 24.04.2021, was hospitalized, and succumbed to the virus on 28.04.2021. The appellant applied for ₹1 crore ex-gratia under GNCTD’s COVID-19 duty compensation scheme (Cabinet Decision No.2835 dated 13.05.2020).
Her claim was rejected by the Revenue Department on 27.12.2021, stating her husband was not on “COVID duty” but merely on “regular duty.” A subsequent letter dated 24.04.2023 from the school Principal clarified that he was indeed engaged in COVID-related tasks, including vaccination administration.
The writ petition filed by the widow was dismissed by the Single Judge on 28.11.2024. She appealed by way of LPA.
Issues
- Whether the deceased Principal was “deployed on COVID-19 duties” as per GNCTD’s ex-gratia scheme.
- Whether denial of compensation on the ground of “regular duty” was legally sustainable.
- Whether beneficial schemes should be interpreted restrictively or purposively.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant argued that her husband was on active COVID duty, supervising vaccination-related tasks in his school. She submitted that the government orders of April 2021 mandating attendance for Principals amounted to deployment on COVID-19 duty.
She emphasized that the welfare scheme’s objective was to benefit families of frontline employees exposed to the pandemic and that denial based on technicalities was against the scheme’s spirit. She relied on subsequent documentary proof from the school Principal dated 24.04.2023 confirming deployment.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State contended that ex-gratia applied only to employees formally deployed for COVID-19 specific duties. Since the deceased was performing his regular role as Principal, his death could not be attributed to COVID-19 duty. They argued the rejection of claim was justified in terms of policy wording.
The Municipal Corporation argued that there was no record to prove the school was engaged in COVID-related activities.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the Cabinet Decision of 13.05.2020 and emphasized that it was a welfare measure meant to protect families of those who died in the line of duty during the pandemic. Applying a literal, narrow construction would defeat its purpose.
The Court relied on the doctrine of purposive interpretation, holding that the scheme must be read in a manner that fulfils its object. It observed that a school Principal supervising COVID-related vaccination duty was undoubtedly exposed to the virus, and his death was attributable to such duty.
Precedent Analysis
- Union of India v. Sangeeta Wahi (2025 SCC OnLine Del 164) – Held that welfare schemes for COVID-19 must be interpreted broadly to benefit families of deceased frontline workers. Applied here to interpret GNCTD’s ex-gratia scheme expansively.
- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia (2008) 3 SCC 279 – Applied the doctrine of purposive interpretation in welfare legislations. Relied upon to construe the scheme’s intent broadly.
- Workmen v. American Express International Banking Corp. (1985) 4 SCC 71 – Welfare statutes must be liberally construed. Cited to reject narrow interpretations.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned:
- The letter dated 24.04.2023 confirmed that the deceased was engaged in vaccination-related COVID duties. The government could not resile from this.
- Even if the Principal did not directly administer vaccines, his supervisory role placed him at high risk of exposure. It was illogical to exclude him from coverage.
- The MCD failed to produce contrary records; thus, the appellant’s claim stood substantiated.
- Welfare policies cannot be interpreted rigidly; their benevolent intent must guide application.
Conclusion
The Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge’s order, and directed GNCTD to release the ₹1 crore ex-gratia within eight weeks. Any delay beyond this would attract 6% annual interest.
Implications
This judgment strengthens the principle that beneficial government schemes must be interpreted purposively and liberally. It provides relief to families of frontline employees exposed to COVID-19, clarifying that supervisory roles in pandemic duties are equally covered. It sets an important precedent ensuring that governments cannot defeat welfare claims by taking a narrow view of deployment records.
FAQs
1. What is considered “COVID-19 duty” for ex-gratia compensation?
It includes not just direct medical tasks but also supervisory and administrative roles that expose employees to COVID risks, such as overseeing vaccination drives.
2. Why was the widow initially denied compensation?
Authorities claimed her husband was on “regular duty,” not “COVID duty.” The High Court rejected this as a narrow and unjust view.
3. What happens if the government delays payment of ex-gratia?
The Delhi High Court directed that any delay beyond eight weeks will attract 6% interest until payment.
