Shanti Devi vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.

$~56
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: November 04 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010534312026
+ W.P.(C) 16414/2026
SHANTI DEVI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prafulla, Mr. Kuldeep
Singh and Mr. Neetish Kumar,
Advocates.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Avni Singh, Panel Counsel
with Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Ms.
Sanskriti Nautiyal, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, widow of
Late Sh. Rajender Singh, seeking quashing of the order dated
22.06.2021 bearing No. F.1(58)/Relief/Ex-gratia/2021/4307-4308
passed by Respondent No.1, whereby her claim for ex gratia
compensation of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- under Cabinet Decision No.2835
dated 13.05.2020 was rejected, and for a direction to the Respondents
to release the said amount along with interest, on the ground that her
husband, a Lab Attendant with the Maulana Azad Institute of Dental
Sciences (hereafter referred to as ‘MAIDS’ ), succumbed to COVID-
19 while discharging his duties during the pandemic.
2. Succinctly stated, the petitioner claims that her husband was
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16414/2026 Page 1 of 6
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
14:58:48

appointed on a regular basis as a Lab Attendant in Maulana Azad
Medical College on 01.07.1987 and, upon the formation of MAIDS
with effect from 01.07.2005, was placed on deemed deputation to
MAIDS, where he continued to serve till his demise. It is averred that
the deceased continued to attend the Institute throughout the
pandemic, tested positive for COVID-19 (RT-PCR report dated
18.04.2021), was admitted to Lok Nayak Hospital on 24.04.2021 and
unfortunately expired on 27.04.2021. The Death Audit Committee,
DGHS, GNCTD, vide its report dated 25.05.2021, certified that the
deceased died due to COVID-19.
3. It has been urged in the petition that on 17.05.2021, the
petitioner submitted an application to the Director-Principal, MAIDS,
seeking ex gratia compensation of Rs. 1 crore in terms of Cabinet
Decision No.2835 dated 13.05.2020, which was forwarded by the
Director-Principal, MAIDS, vide letter dated 28.05.2021 to the
Revenue Department, GNCTD, with a recommendation for release of
the said amount, noting that dental professionals were exposed to a
higher risk of COVID-19 infection.
4. The claim of the petitioner was, however, rejected by
Respondent No.1 vide the impugned order dated 22.06.2021, a copy of
which was also marked to the petitioner at her residential address. The
relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereunder: -
“With reference to the above cited case, I am directed to inform
you that the above case was examined in terms of Cabinet Decision
No. 2835 dated 13.05.2020 and it was not found eligible as Late
Sh. Rajender Singh, Lab Attendant was performing his routine
duty assigned to him and was not deployed specifically for
COVID-19 duty , which is a mandatory condition to become
eligible for grant of Ex-gratia of Rs. One Crore.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16414/2026 Page 2 of 6
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
14:58:48

This issues with the approval of Competent Authority.”
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that she is
entitled to the compensation, as the deceased, being a Lab Attendant
in a dental institute, was exposed to aerosol-generating procedures and
his claim was recommended by his own employer, and the fact of his
death due to COVID-19 is undisputed.
6. Per contra , the learned Counsel for the Respondents submits
that the petition suffers from gross delay and laches since the claim of
the petitioner was rejected as far back on 22.06.2021, which was duly
communicated to the petitioner, and the same was never assailed for
more than five years, and the petitioner cannot be permitted to revive
a stale claim. On merits, he contends that the petitioner failed to prove
that the deceased was specifically deployed for COVID-19 duties, and
was only performing regular/routine duties , thus, making him
ineligible for compensation under Cabinet Decision No.2835.
7. The Court has considered the submissions and perused the
record.
8. At the outset, in the opinion of this Court, the decisive aspect is
that of delay and laches. The claim of the petitioner was specifically
rejected vide order dated 22.06.2021, which, as is evident from the
impugned order itself, was marked to the petitioner at her residential
address. The cause of action, therefore, arose on 22.06.2021 to
challenge the non-grant of compensation. The present petition,
however, has been instituted only in the year 2026, that is, after more
than five years. The petitioner has not placed on record any material to
show that she pursued her claim before any authority at any time
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16414/2026 Page 3 of 6
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
14:58:48

during this period; neither has she furnished any cogent explanation
for the delay.
9. The only explanation furnished for the delay that the petitioner
continued to believe that her claim would be honoured on the strength
of the recommendation of MAIDS cannot be accepted, since the said
recommendation dated 28.05.2021 preceded the impugned order, and
was considered and declined by Respondent No.1 by a specific order
communicated to the petitioner.
10. Though the Court is not unmindful of the circumstances of the
petitioner, a general plea of being a widow without independent
means, unsupported by any particulars, cannot account for the
complete inaction for over five years after the claim was expressly
rejected. Although there is no strict statutory limitation period
prescribed for filing a writ petition, courts may reject petitions if they
suffer from undue delay and laches or if action is not taken within a
“reasonable time” .
11. The only reason, in substance, put forth for approaching this
Court at this belated stage is the pronouncement of judgments in the
cases of other litigants. It is well settled that a subsequent judgment
rendered in the case of another person does not furnish a fresh cause
of action to a litigant who has slept over her rights.
12. In the present case, no explanation sufficient to account for the
prolonged inaction between the rejection of the claim in June, 2021
and the filing of the present petition in the year 2026 has been placed
before this Court.
13. Insofar as the merits of the case are concerned, it would be
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16414/2026 Page 4 of 6
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
14:58:48

beneficial to refer to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of
this Court in Prem Wati & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT & Ors. :
2026:DHC:6749-DB, whereby the distinction between routine duties
and COVID-19 duties has been affirmed and this Court has declined to
grant ex gratia compensation to the claimant therein, noting that the
deceased employee was not assigned to discharge any COVID-19
duties .
14. It has been categorically noted that the petitioner has failed to
place on record any document, such as a deployment order, posting
order, duty roster or certificate of COVID-duty, to show that the
deceased was deployed for COVID-19 duties. The attendance sheet
for the month of April, 2021 merely reflects the attendance of the
deceased and not the nature of the duties performed by him.
15. It is pertinent to note that the mere fact that the death of the
deceased was caused by COVID-19, which is not in dispute, does not
by itself establish that he was deployed for COVID-19 duties. On the
petitioner’s own showing, MAIDS was not a designated COVID
hospital, and the deceased was discharging his regular duties as a Lab
Attendant in the ordinary course of his employment.
16. Thus, the Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, cannot permit a claim, which stood specifically
rejected vide order dated 22.06.2021, to be revived after more than
five years merely on the strength of judgments rendered in the cases of
other litigants, particularly when no steps were taken by the petitioner
to assail the said rejection or to pursue her claim in the intervening
period.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16414/2026 Page 5 of 6
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
14:58:48

17. In view of the aforesaid, in the peculiar facts of the present case,
this Court finds no ground to entertain the present petition.
18. The petition, along with the pending application(s), if any,
stands dismissed.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
NOVEMBER 4, 2026
DU
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16414/2026 Page 6 of 6
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
14:58:48