Premium

‘Humanitarian lens, not rigid approach’: Bombay High Court orders Rs 50 lakh payout to kin of Covid 19 frontline worker

Maharashtra Government Insurance: The Bombay High Court said that the frontline workers involved in essential services, became the guardians of life during these testing times and confronted the pandemic head-on, willingly exposing themselves to substantial personal risk to save others.

The Bombay High Court said that the frontline workers’ commitment often meant being away from families, working long hours under extreme pressure, and facing the trauma of losing patients as well as colleagues.The Bombay High Court said that the frontline workers’ commitment often meant being away from families, working long hours under extreme pressure, and facing the trauma of losing patients as well as colleagues. (Image generated using AI)

Bombay High Court Covid Compensation: The Bombay High Court recently observed that the state must act with sensitivity towards frontline workers who lost lives and must not allow “procedural rigidity to eclipse substantive justice”.

A bench of Justices Ajit B Kadethankar and M S Karnik, while ordering Rs 50 lakh compensation to family members of a panchayat worker who died due to Covid-19 infection in July 2021 on government duty said that the case must be examined through a “humanitarian lens” rather than a “rigid or technical approach”.

“Denying relief would be to do a disservice to the sacrifice made by the deceased in his fight against COVID-19,” the bench said on December 10.

Case

Yashwant Khandu Jadhav, who was working as an extension officer with the Karveer panchayat samittee (a block level rural body) contracted Covid 19 on June 16, 2021 and died on July 11, 2021.

The Maharashtra government issued a “Government Resolution” (GR), an order providing insurance cover to government employees including the panchayat workers with insurance cover of Rs 50 lakh.

Initially, the cut off date was set to September 30, 2020 which was extended multiple times due to recurring Covid 19 waves and the final cut off was set to June 30, 2021.

Jadhav’s family was denied relief citing that he died after the cut off date.

Story continues below this ad

Findings

“This would be in tune with the constitutional ethos that the State must act with sensitivity towards those who have suffered and must not allow procedural rigidity to eclipse substantive justice. It reinforces the societal acknowledgement that the courage displayed by frontline workers remains a beacon of hope in a time of despair,” the court said.

The court said a liberal construction of the GR is required to ensure that the motive of welfare of affected families of frontline workers is fulfilled, providing some solace at least, as the loss of a family member can never be adequately compensated.

Terming the circumstances induced by Covid 19 pandemic as a “formidable demon”, the court said that in the face of such grave danger, a category of individuals rose with extraordinary courage and unwavering dedication- our frontline workers, including healthcare professionals such as doctors, nurses, paramedics, sanitation staff, police personnel, and countless others.

They were involved in essential services, became the guardians of life during these testing times and confronted the pandemic head-on, willingly exposing themselves to substantial personal risk to save others, the bench noted.

Story continues below this ad

It added that they worked tirelessly in hospitals, quarantine centres, testing facilities, and vaccination drives and their commitment often meant being away from families, working long hours under extreme pressure, and facing the trauma of losing patients as well as colleagues.

Further stating that their role was not just a professional obligation but an act of selfless service, the bench said they fought not only against a microscopic enemy but also preserved the very foundation of society by ensuring the continued availability of vital healthcare and public services.

When the pandemic presented a challenge of unparalleled magnitude for mankind, our frontline workers’ resilience, bravery, and sacrifice became the cornerstone of the global response, the court said.

“Tragically, many of these brave hearts made the ultimate sacrifice; their own lives fell victim in their courageous efforts to save others. In recognising this profound sacrifice, it is a moral and societal imperative to honour frontline workers and extend necessary support to their families, especially the heirs of those who lost their lives.

Story continues below this ad

To deny or restrict the relief to those who passed away after June 30, 2021 would be contrary to the values of justice, fairness, and dignity which animate our constitutional order, and also contrary to public conscience and societal gratitude.

Observing that the hardships faced by these workers and their families during the pandemic were immense and deserve recognition beyond mere symbolic gestures, the bench further added that monetary benefits granted through a generous interpretation of the GR provide tangible relief to these families.

Such an approach also sends a powerful message of societal value placed on self-sacrifice and inspires future generations to act with similar courage when called upon in the wake of testing times, it further said.

Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system. Expertise Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including: Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability. Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters. Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights. Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More

 

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Loading Taboola...
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement