Ameya Hansraj Bhaisare vs State of Maha. Thr. Its Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

The petitioner claims compensation in terms of the G.R. dated 29/05/2020 (page 40) on account of the mother of the petitioner Smt. Surekha Kashinath Indurkar, nee Surekha Hansraj Bhaisare having expired on 21/09/2020 on account of COVID-19, considering the fact that she was on COVID duty on 11/09/2020.

¶14

Mr.Ukey, learned Additional Government Pleader, as well as Mr.Sohoni, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 do not dispute that on 11/09/2020, the deceased Surekha was on COVID duty. It is also not disputed that she expired on 21/09/2020 on account of COVID-19. The only defence which is being raised is that in terms of clause 3(B)(a) of the G.R. dated 29/05/2020 (page 40) the deceased ought to have been on COVID duty continuously for 14 days prior to her demise and the certification in this regard to be done by the District Magistrate or any other designated Head of Departments.

¶15

ORDER DATED 24/03/2025 2 12-wp 2195.2024.doc

¶16

3) Insofar as the plea that the deceased has to be on continuous duty for a period of of 14 days prior to the demise, we find that this is not so indicated from the language of clause 3(B)(a) of the G.R. dated 29/05/2020 which is reproduced as udder:-

¶17

“3. However, besides healthcare staff a lot of other staff (District administration, Police, Home guards, Anganwadi workers, Finance and Treasury, Food and Civil supply, Water supply and Sanitation, Employees of various departments deputed for house to house survey work etc.) have also been involved in Covid related duties. Therefore, with a view to supporting such personnel in their active line of duty in fighting Covid-19 pandemic and to stand by their families in the event of their unfortunate loss of life, the State Government has taken the following decisions.

¶18

A. The government will provide a comprehensive personal accident cover of Rs 50 lakhs to all employees who are on active duty relating to survey, tracing, tracking, testing, prevention, treatment and relief activities for Covid pandemic. The modalities in this regard are being worked out with insurance companies.

¶19

B. Till the time such package is worked out and the insurance scheme comes into force, as an interim measure, all cases of deaths of the employees on duties (survey, tracing, tracking, prevention, testing, treatment, relief activities etc.), on account of Covid, will be covered through an ex-gratia assistance of Rs 50 lakhs subject to following conditions:

¶20

a. The employee should have been on duty within the 14-day period preceding his/her hospitalization or death. The verification/certification in this regard would be done by District Magistrates or any other designated Head of Departments etc.”

¶21

The aforesaid language would indicate that the deceased employee should have been on duty within the 14 day period preceding her death. Since it is not disputed that the deceased employee Surekha was on COVID duty from April 2020

¶22

ORDER DATED 24/03/2025 3 12-wp 2195.2024.doc

¶23

to 11/09/2020 and so also her demise on 21/09/2020, on account of COVID 19 is also not disputed, in view of the report at page 46 dated 22/09/2020 in respect of the sample of the deceased employee taken on 21/09/2020 the requirement, insofar as the first part of clause 3(B)(a) of the G.R. dated 29/05/2020 stands satisfied.

¶24

The only further requirement to be satisfied by the petitioner, who is the daughter of the deceased employee is for the verification/certification regarding her demise by the District Magistrate or any other designated Head of Departments. The petitioner in this regard has submitted a certificate which is certified by the Medical Officer Primary Health Center, Khadsangi dated 28/09/2020 (page 36), which would not meet the requirement of the G.R. 29/05/2020 regarding certification of the demise of the employee by the District Magistrate or other designated Head of Department. In case that is done, the same would also stand satisfied. We therefore dispose off the petition by directing the petitioner to satisfy the requirement of certification in terms of clause 3(B)(a) of the G.R. dated 29/05/2020 and in case the department is so satisfied, it shall process the claim of the petitioner for COVID compensation in accordance with the aforesaid G.R., after being satisfied regarding the relationship of the petitioner with the deceased employee. No costs.

¶25

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

¶26

KOLHE

¶27

Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 25/03/2025 17:20:16

Ameya Hansraj Bhaisare v. State of Maha. Thr. Its Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ameya Hansraj Bhaisare v. State of Maha. Thr. Its Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harshal Gramin Vikas Bahu Sanstha, Mul, Chandrapur Thr. President vs State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Dept. of Water Supply and Sanitation, Mumbai and Anr.

Ruhant Mazoor Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Bhandara and Others Vs the State of Maha. Thr. Its Sec. Public Works Dept. Mantralaya Mumbai and Another

Babarao S/O Pandu Urwate and Others vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Collector, Yavatmal and Others

Suryakant S/O Sambhaji Khade and Another vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Co-Operation, Mumbai and Others

Sunita W/O. Pradip Lolure @ Sunita D/O. Virsing Dhonde vs State of Maha., Thr. Secy., General Administration Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Rohit Hasmukhlal Joshi vs Initiating Authority and the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Nagpur and Anr.