Allowed¶11

Shankar S/O Jaganaath Gaur v. Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Thr. Commissioner, Nagpur and Another

Bombay HC13 Mar 2025WP/4182/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Covid compensation Rs. 50,00,000 (Fifty Lakhs); death on Covid duty; Nagpur Municipal Corporation; Assistant Teacher; legal heir / legal heirs; Government Resolution dated 04.08.2021; financial distress not a ground to deny compensation; funds sought from State; payment within eight weeks; verification of legal heirs; writ petition allowed; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 1 (Nagpur Municipal Corporation) to pay Covid compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rs. Fifty Lakhs) to the legal heirs of deceased employee Mrs. Usha Gaur within eight weeks, with liberty to respondent No. 1 to verify the legal heirs to its satisfaction so as to preclude contrary claims. ¶11

Shankar S/O Jaganaath Gaur Vs Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Thr. Commissioner, Nagpur and Another — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, as legal heir of deceased Mrs. Usha Gaur (Assistant Teacher with Nagpur Municipal Corporation who died while on Covid duty), is entitled to Covid compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- under the Government Resolution dated 04.08.2021. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

As the facts that Mrs. Usha Gaur was on Covid duty and passed away on such duty are undisputed, the petitioner is entitled to receive the Covid compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- on account of the Government Resolution dated 04.08.2021.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The plea of financial distress of respondent No. 1 cannot be a ground to deny the Covid compensation to the petitioner.

¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), Writ Petition No. 4182 of 2024 — Shankar S/o Jagannath Gaur v. Nagpur Municipal Corporation and another (Avinash G. Gharote and Abhay J. Mantri, JJ.), decided 13th March 2025. The petitioner, legal heir of Mrs. Usha Gaur, an Assistant Teacher with Nagpur Municipal Corporation who died while on Covid duty, sought Covid compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- under the Government Resolution dated 04.08.2021. The respondent corporation did not dispute that the deceased was on Covid duty and died on such duty, its sole reason for non-payment being financial distress and the pendency of a request for funds from the State. Holding that undisputed entitlement under the Government Resolution could not be defeated by the corporation's financial distress, the Court allowed the petition and directed payment of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rs. Fifty Lakhs) to the legal heirs within eight weeks, while permitting the corporation to verify the legal heirs to its satisfaction so as to prevent contrary claims.

¶1

1 45-A-4182-24.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4182 OF 2024 Shankar S/o Jagannath Gaur Vs. Nagpur Municipal Corporation and another

¶4

Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶5

Mr. N.T. Gwalwansh, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. J.B. Kasat, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mr. A.V. Palshikar, AGP for Respondent No.2

¶6

CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

¶7

DATED : 13^th MARCH, 2025

¶8

The petition questions the denial of Covid compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- to the petitioner, who is the legal heir of deceased Mrs. Usha Gaur, who was working as Assistant Teacher with the Nagpur Municipal Corporation and was on Covid duty. The fact, that the wife of the petitioner was on Covid duty and has passed away on such duty is not disputed by Mr. Kasat, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, upon instructions. If that be so, the entitlement of the petitioner to receive the aforesaid amount on account of the Government Resolution dated 04.08.2021, would no longer in dispute. The respondent No. 1 has tendered across the bar reply dated 12.2.2025 in terms of which the only reason not to pay the aforesaid compensation is cited due to

¶9

2 45-A-4182-24.odt

¶10

the financial distress and a plea that the funds have been sought from the State.

¶11

2 Since the facts are not disputed that the wife of the petitioner has been passed away during the time when she was posted on Covid duty and that the petitioner on that count is entitled for the Covid compensation, the plea of financial distress cannot be a ground to deny said compensation to the petitioner, who is husband of deceased Mrs. Usha Gaur. We, therefore, allow the petition by directing the respondent No. 1 to pay Covid compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rs. Fifty Lakhs) to the legal heirs of deceased employee Mrs. Usha Gaur, within a period of eight weeks from today. We, however, make it clear that the respondent No. 1 will be entitled to verify as to who are the legal heirs of deceased Mrs. Usha Gaur to their satisfaction so that there would be no contrary claims to the compensation in future.

¶12

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

¶13

MP Deshpande

Shankar S/O Jaganaath Gaur v. Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Thr. Commissioner, Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar S/O Jaganaath Gaur v. Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Thr. Commissioner, Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prashant Annasaheb Nalse Vs State of Mah. Thr. Secy., Deptt. of School Educn., and Sports, Mantralaya, Mumbai

Sau. Archana Surendra Wankhede and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Deptt. of School Education and Sports, Mumbai and or

Vinod S/O. Radheshyam Gupta vs the Additional Collector, Nagpur District, Nagpur and Others

Suresh Shamrao Thakare and Others vs the State of Maharashtra, Revenue and Forest Dept., Thr. Collector, Nagpur and Others

Sohail Ahmed Ansari Khaleel Ahmed vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Education and Sports Department, Mumbai and Others

Prasnna D/O. Ganeshrao Dalu vs Union of India, Thr. Secy., Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and Ors.