Case Note & Summary
The High Court allowed a Writ Petition filed by the wife of a deceased MSRTC employee, directing MSRTC to pay compensation of Rs. 50,00,000 under a COVID-19 ex-gratia scheme. The deceased died from COVID-19 on 7 April 2021 while deputed to supervise traffic at BEST Bus Depot. MSRTC had rejected the claim, arguing the deceased was not a driver and thus not covered by their circular. The Court interpreted the relevant Government Resolution and circular beneficially, holding that all employees of MSRTC, including those in supervisory roles, were entitled to compensation as they were engaged in essential services during the pandemic. The Court emphasized that the scheme aimed to provide financial support to families of employees who died from COVID-19, and a restrictive interpretation would defeat its purpose.
Headnote
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in its Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, heard a Writ Petition filed by Petitioner against the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. (MSRTC) and the State of Maharashtra -- The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to compel payment of Rs. 50,00,000 as compensation for the death of her husband, Bapu Jagtap, an MSRTC employee who died from COVID-19 on 7 April 2021 -- The MSRTC had rejected her claim, citing that the deceased was not assigned essential services and was not a driver involved in interstate transport, based on their circular dated 1 June 2020 -- The Court examined the Government Resolution dated 29 May 2020, issued by the Government of Maharashtra, which provided ex-gratia assistance of Rs. 50,00,000 for employees of local bodies and State Government Public Undertakings, including MSRTC, during the COVID-19 pandemic -- The Court held that the circular dated 1 June 2020 should be interpreted beneficially to include all employees, not just drivers, as the Government Resolution extended the benefit broadly -- The Court found that the deceased was deputed to supervise traffic at BEST Bus Depot, which constituted essential services during the pandemic -- Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, directing MSRTC to pay Rs. 50,00,000 to the petitioner within eight weeks, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition if not paid within the stipulated time
Issue of Consideration
The Issue of Consideration was whether the petitioner, as the wife of a deceased MSRTC employee who died from COVID-19, was entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,00,000 under the ex-gratia scheme, despite the deceased not being a driver or directly involved in interstate transport
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, directing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (MSRTC) to pay compensation of Rs. 50,00,000 to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of the judgment, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition if not paid within the stipulated time
Law Points
- Interpretation of circulars and government resolutions
- entitlement to ex-gratia compensation under COVID-19 schemes
- principles of beneficial construction
- writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- 1950 (Constitution of India)
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 116
Writ Petition No. 5699 of 2024
M. S. Karnik J. , S. M. Modak J.
Mr. Akhil Kupade i/b. Mr. S. R. Jadhav for Petitioner, Mr. Nitesh Bhutekar a/w Ms. Sejal Singh, Mr. Aaditya Mahamiya and Mr. Prathamesh Mandlik for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Smt. R. A. Salunkhe, AGP, for Respondent No. 4
1. The Chairman, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Mumbai, 2. The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Mumbai, Nashik Region, Nashik, 3. The Depot Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport, Nashik Depot, 4. State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking compensation for the death of an employee due to COVID-19
Remedy Sought
The petitioner, Smt. Sunita Bapu Jagtap, sought a Writ of Mandamus against the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 50,00,000 for the death of her husband, Bapu Jagtap, an MSRTC employee
Filing Reason
MSRTC rejected the petitioner's claim for compensation based on circulars, stating the deceased was not a driver or involved in interstate transport, leading to the filing of the petition
Previous Decisions
MSRTC rejected the claim through letters dated 21 January 2022, 5 March 2022, and 2 March 2023, citing non-fulfillment of criteria under the circular dated 1 June 2020
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,00,000 under the ex-gratia scheme for COVID-19 deaths, despite the deceased not being a driver
Whether the circular dated 1 June 2020 should be interpreted strictly to exclude non-driver employees from compensation
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the circular should be interpreted beneficially to include all MSRTC employees, as the Government Resolution extended the scheme broadly to public undertakings
The respondents argued that the deceased did not meet the criteria under the circular as he was not a driver or involved in interstate transport, and alternative compensation under circular No. 32 of 2021 was applicable
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that the ex-gratia scheme under the Government Resolution dated 29 May 2020 and circular dated 1 June 2020 should be interpreted beneficially to include all employees of MSRTC engaged in essential services during the COVID-19 pandemic, not limited to drivers, as the scheme aimed to provide financial support to families of deceased employees
Judgment Excerpts
The issue involved in this Writ Petition is about entitlement of wife of deceased to claim compensation from the respondents on account of death of her husband
The Government of Maharashtra has already clarified the benefit of GR dated 29 May 2020 is extended to all employees working in local bodies and State Government Public Undertaking
The Court held that the circular should be interpreted in a beneficial manner to include all employees, as the deceased was deputed for supervising traffic, which constitutes essential services
Procedural History
The petitioner filed the Writ Petition after MSRTC rejected her compensation claim through letters dated 21 January 2022, 5 March 2022, and 2 March 2023; the Court heard arguments from both sides and examined relevant documents, including Government Resolutions and circulars, before delivering the judgment
Acts & Sections
- The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897:
- Disaster Management Act, 2005:
