4 min readLucknowUpdated: Mar 31, 2026 03:39 PM IST
The counsel also contended that in view of the government order dated June 1, 2021, it was not necessary for one to have obtained a positive RTPCR or antigen test reports and if the death takes place within 30 days of the infection or otherwise, it should be taken as a Covid death. (Source: Express Archives)
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition seeking ex-gratia compensation for the death of a woman teacher due to Covid-19, while on election duty in 2021, on grounds that the claimant did not have test reports or a death memo stating it was a Covid death.
The bench of Justices Ajit Kumar and Garima Prashad upheld the decision of the District Magistrate (DM), Firozabad, rejecting the compensation application on the same grounds in 2023.
Challenging the DM’s decision, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the government order regarding Covid death compensation was not correctly interpreted while rejecting the claim.
The counsel stated that the petitioner’s wife was working as an assistant teacher at a government basic school when she was assigned election duty on April 7, 2021. While on duty, she got infected with the virus and was admitted to the hospital on April 27 after her condition worsened. She died the same day.
Arguments in court
In support of the claim, the counsel stated that the woman’s chest report was submitted on record. Though the report did not show abnormality corroborating the death caused due to Covid, the counsel argued that it should be considered a Covid death since there was a pandemic in the country at the time.
The counsel also contended that in view of the government order dated June 1, 2021, it was not necessary for one to have obtained a positive RTPCR or antigen test reports and if the death takes place within 30 days of the infection or otherwise, it should be taken as a Covid death.
However, the Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State submitted that a very exhaustive order was passed giving valid reasons for rejecting the claim, on the ground that the petitioner could not place any material before the authority confirming his wife’s death was caused due to Covid.
Story continues below this ad
Pointing to the 2021 government order, the state counsel submitted that three documents were required for the compensation claim: date of infection, date of positive test report, and a certificate confirming the patient was Covid positive.
The order also explained that if the RTPCR and antigen reports may not be positive, then a blood test report should be relied upon.
It also explained that if a patient was Covid positive on a particular date but a subsequent report doesn’t reflect it, their death should still be considered a Covid-19 death if it occurred within 30 days of the first positive test. In such cases, the family would be eligible for compensation, the state’s lawyer added.
The state counsel further stated that in the present case, the petitioner did not place any material that, at any point of time, his wife suffered from Covid. No test report, much less a blood test report, was ever placed.
Story continues below this ad
The chest report clearly records the final opinion — ‘Bilateral pleural effusion (left>right) with adjacent passive atelectasis are suggestive of infective etiology which is inconsistent for covid infection’. Thus, this report cannot be relied upon for the ex-gratia claim, the government counsel argued.
Hearing the submissions, the division bench observed that RTPCR and antigen test reports would hardly matter in the event a death certificate is available to show that a person died due to Covid.
In some cases, a person may carry a certificate to show a patient died due to Covid 19 but he may not be in possession of a positive test report. In those circumstances also, a claim of compensation can be allowed, the bench observed.
“In the case at hand, we do not find… any such above document was placed before the authority to demonstrate that [the] patient died due to Covid… or died while already suffering [it],” the court observed.
Story continues below this ad
The court stated in its order, “… Thus, we do not find any merit in the case. The writ petition is dismissed.”
Bhupendra Pandey is the Resident Editor of the Lucknow edition of The Indian Express. With decades of experience in the heart of Uttar Pradesh’s journalistic landscape, he oversees the bureau’s coverage of India’s most politically significant state. His expertise lies in navigating the complex intersections of state governance, legislative policy, and grassroots social movements. From tracking high-stakes assembly elections to analyzing administrative shifts in the Hindi heartland, Bhupendra’s reportage provides a definitive lens on the region's evolution.
Authoritativeness He leads a team of seasoned reporters and investigators, ensuring that The Indian Express’ signature "Journalism of Courage" is reflected in every regional story. His leadership is central to the Lucknow bureau’s reputation for breaking stories that hold the powerful to account, making him a trusted figure for policy analysts, political scholars, and the general public seeking to understand the nuances of UP’s complex landscape.
Trustworthiness & Accountability Under his stewardship, the Lucknow edition adheres to the strictest standards of factual verification and non-partisan reporting. He serves as a bridge between the local populace and the national discourse, ensuring that regional issues are elevated with accuracy and context. By prioritizing primary-source reporting and on-the-ground verification, he upholds the trust that readers have placed in the Express brand for nearly a century. ... Read More
