Disposed

Shivam Mishra v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2022WRIC/18313/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking ex-gratia payment for father died of Covid-19 post election duty. Court directed State to determine claim eligibility under Paragraph 12 of relevant G.O. by calling necessary reports within eight weeks. Petition disposed accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No. 1 to decide petitioner's claim within eight weeks after calling necessary reports from respondent No. 3 or other appropriate authority.

Shivam Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18313 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Shivam Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Raj Prajapati,Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ten Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

The instant petition has been filed praying for a mandamus directing the respondents to release ex-gratia amount of Rs. 30 lakhs in favour of the petitioner on basis of G.O. dated 1.6.2021.

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that his father who was posted as Consolidation Lekhpal, had performed election duty during Panchayat Elections from 12.4.2021 to 17.4.2021. He got infected with Covid-19 and was admitted in hospital on 21.4.2021 and later died on 26.4.2021. The respondents have declined to grant ex-gratia amount for the reason that the documents submitted through the hospital did not contain any RTPCR report, nor any mobile number, therefore, it was not possible to ascertain from the online portal as to whether the deceased was infected with Covid-19 or not.

¶7

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was not necessary that a person claiming ex-gratia amount should have undergone RTPCR test. There were cases where the RTPCR report was negative, still a person had died because of post Covid complications. In order to meet such contingencies, Paragraph 12 of the G.O. specifically makes such claims admissible. He submitted that the CT Scan report is clearly indicative of the fact that the father of the petitioner was suffering from Covid19 infection and the death certificate also specifically mentions that he died because of viral pneumonia (Covid-19) disease. The specific case of the petitioner is that he had submitted an

¶8

application in prescribed format on 25.6.2021 and prays that the claim so made may be directed to be decided within specified time.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel is not in a position to dispute that even in absence of a positive RTPCR report, certain claims, if they fall under paragraph 12, were admissible. However, it is a matter to be ascertained by the authorities.

¶10

Accordingly, we direct respondent no. 1 to decide the claim of the petitioner, after calling for necessary report from respondent no. 3, or such other authority as he deems fit and proper and after such enquiry as is considered necessary. The said exercise shall be completed within eight weeks from the date of production of a true attested copy of the instant order, along with the photocopy of the application dated 23.6.2021 (annexure-8).

¶11

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶12

(Dr. Y. K. Srivastava, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶13

Order Date :- 7.7.2022 Jaideep/-

¶14

Digitally signed by JAIDEEP BANERJEE Date: 2022.07.07 15:32:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shivam Mishra v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam Mishra v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Kumar Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pushpendra Kumar Rai Vs the Chairman and 5 Others

Ary Kanya Group of Institution and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mamta Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mrs. Surekha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dabbu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others