MSRTC Supervisor's Widow Entitled To ₹50 Lakh COVID Ex-Gratia; Traffic Field Staff Bear Equal Pandemic Risk As Drivers And Conductors: Bombay High Court
Safiya Malik
The Bombay High Court Division Bench of Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice S.M. Modak held that an MSRTC employee deputed to supervise traffic operations at a BEST bus depot during the COVID-19 pandemic was exposed to the same risk as drivers and conductors, making his widow eligible for ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs under the relevant Government Resolution and MSRTC circulars. The Court set aside MSRTC's refusal to grant the higher compensation, noting that the deceased discharged his duties at personal risk during a period when public life had come to a standstill, and directed payment of the remaining Rs. 45 lakhs after adjusting the Rs. 5 lakhs already paid.
The petitioner, wife of a deceased employee of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. (MSRTC Ltd.), filed a writ petition seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- on account of the death of her husband due to COVID-pneumonia. The deceased was an employee of MSRTC Ltd. and was deputed at the Wadala Depot of Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST) for the purpose of supervising excess traffic, as per a letter dated 23rd March 2021. He joined duty on 24th March 2021 and worked till 28th March 2021.
The deceased subsequently took leave on account of ill-health from 29th March 2021 to 31st March 2021, returned to his native place, and received treatment at a local dispensary. He was advised on 3rd April 2021 to undergo a COVID test and was admitted to Sub-district Hospital, Yevala. He was diagnosed COVID positive on 5th April 2021 and died on 7th April 2021. The cause of death was certified as respiratory failure, Terminal Type I, and ARDS in case of COVID-pneumonia.
The petitioner relied upon a circular dated 1st June 2020 issued by MSRTC Ltd. and a Government Resolution dated 29th May 2020, extended vide GR dated 14th May 2021, providing ex-gratia assistance of Rs.50,00,000/- to employees dying due to COVID. MSRTC Ltd. rejected the claim through letters dated 21st January 2022, 5th March 2022, and 2nd March 2023, stating that the deceased was not assigned essential services and was not a driver involved in interstate transport. Respondents Nos.1 to 3 had, however, deposited Rs.5,00,000/- in the petitioner's bank account under Circular No.32 of 2021 dated 30th September 2021, which provided for lesser compensation for employees not entitled to the higher amount.
The Court examined the scope and applicability of the MSRTC circular dated 1st June 2020, the Government Resolution dated 29th May 2020, and their extensions, in the context of the deceased's role as a traffic supervisor at the Wadala depot of BEST.
On the question of broader interpretation of the scheme, the Court cited the precedent in Ramesh Balu Patil v. State of Maharashtra, where it was observed: "We hold that the benevolent scheme formulated under the Government Resolution dated 29th May 2020 and subsequent Government Resolution dated 14th May 2021 cannot be given a narrow meaning anymore. We declare that 'it is not the date of death, but the date of contracting Covid-19 infection which is material for grant of insurance coverage under the Government Resolution dated 29th May 2020 read with Government Resolution dated 14th May 2021'."
On the rejection based on procedural grounds, the Court referred to Sunil Shankar Mohite v. Union of India, where it was recorded: "We find that it is not only hyper-technical approach of the concerned authority, but imposing condition which even does not find part of the original scheme tempts us to hold that approach of the respondent authorities is hostile to the object of the scheme."
On the facts of the present case and the nature of the deceased's duties, the Court stated that "the husband of the petitioner was involved in supervising the traffic at Wadala depot and as such, will fall within the parameters of the Circular dated 1st June 2020 and as extended vide Circular dated 30th September 2021." The Court further recorded that "even if the deceased was deputed to control the traffic, it does not mean that he was supposed to do the work by sitting in the Office. In discharge of his duty, the deceased was supposed to interact and came in contact with the drivers and conductors who were actually involved in driving the buses thereby exposing him to the same risk as the drivers and conductors."
On the conduct of the respondents, the Court stated that "the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have taken a narrow view of the Circular. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 have forgotten the precarious situation prevailing during COVID period when no one was ready to go out of house for discharging their duties." The Court further recorded that "it was part of duty of the husband of the petitioner to attend the job which he has done at the risk of his life" and that "the respondent Nos.1 to 3 cannot avoid their responsibility."
The Court directed: "Writ Petition is allowed. The decision communicated through the letters dated 21st January 2022, 5th March 2022 and 2nd March 2023 are set aside. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakh) to the petitioner within a period of 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order. If the money is not paid within above said period, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the above said period till realization. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Akhil Kupade, Advocate i/b Mr. S.R. Jadhav, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Nitesh Bhutekar, Advocate a/w Ms. Sejal Singh, Advocate, Mr. Aaditya Mahamiya, Advocate, and Mr. Prathamesh Mandlik, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 – MSRTC; Smt. R.A. Salunkhe, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent No. 4 – State of Maharashtra
Case Title: Smt. Sunita Bapu Jagtap Versus The Chairman, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. and Others
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:9734-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 5699 of 2024
Bench: Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice S.M. Modak
