Archana Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 10090 of 2022
Archana Singh
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rudra Kant Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhishek Srivastava, C.S.C.
A.F.R.
Reserved on 25.09.2026
Delivered on 26.10.2026
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
(As per Hon’ble Garima Parshad, J.)
1. Heard Sri Rudra Kant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and
learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the order dated
16.11.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra, rejecting the
petitioner's claim for ex gratia assistance of Rs.50,00,000/- on account of
the death of her husband due to COVID-19, and for a direction to release
the amount under the Government scheme.
3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner's husband, late Ravindra
Kumar Singh, was employed as a Junior Engineer at the Obra Thermal
Power Project of the Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam
Limited. He continued to discharge his duties during the COVID-19
pandemic and was admitted to the 200-bed Super Speciality COVID
Hospital at Lodhi, Sonbhadra, on 28.04.2021. His bed-head ticket

2
WRIC No. - 10090 of 2022
records a positive COVID antigen result. He died during treatment on
05.05.2021, and the hospital's death proforma records COVID-19 viral
pneumonia followed by cardiopulmonary arrest.
4. By a letter dated 13.05.2021, the Chief General Manager of the
project recommended payment of Rs.50,00,000/- to the petitioner. The
letter explained that uninterrupted generation and supply of electricity
were necessary for the treatment of COVID patients and that the
deceased had continued to perform his duties until he contracted the
infection. On the report dated 12.06.2021 of the committee constituted
under the chairmanship of the Chief Development Officer, the District
Magistrate approved the claim. This approval was communicated by the
Additional District Magistrate on 15.06.2021, with a direction to seek
budget allocation from the State Government.
5. The district administration subsequently called for verification of the
certificates and records. On 18.08.2021, the Chief General Manager
certified that the deceased had died of COVID-19 and that the
certificates and records submitted in support of the claim had been
verified and were correct. Nevertheless, by the impugned order dated
16.11.2021, the application was rejected and returned. The table
accompanying the order records the District Magistrate's
recommendation, the Chief Medical Officer's certificate, the COVID
duty order, the duty certificate, the death registration certificate and the
Additional District Magistrate's verification certificate as available. The
only document marked as unavailable is the positive RT-PCR report.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim has been
rejected on a technical ground despite the official medical records
establishing a positive antigen result and death due to COVID-19. The
employer had certified the nature of the deceased's duties and verified
the supporting documents, and the district administration had itself
approved the claim. The absence of a separate RT-PCR report cannot
defeat the petitioner's entitlement when the infection and cause of death
are acknowledged by the respondents.

3
WRIC No. - 10090 of 2022
7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the State supports the
impugned order and submits that the Government Order dated
26.07.2021 requires a legible copy of an RT-PCR, antigen or CT scan
report to be uploaded on the Relief Commissioner's portal. Such a report
was not available, and the documents furnished were therefore not
considered sufficient. It is submitted that the claim could not be
processed on the portal without the prescribed document.
8. Having considered the rival submissions and the material on record,
the main issue before the Court is whether the petitioner's claim can be
rejected for want of a separate positive test report when the official
medical records record a positive antigen result, the death has been
certified as attributable to COVID-19, and the respondents acknowledge
those facts.
9. The Government scheme provides a one-time ex gratia payment of
Rs.50,00,000/- to the dependants of personnel who died from COVID-19
infection while performing duties connected with its prevention,
protection or treatment. The Government Order issued in June 2021
continued the arrangement for the financial year 2021-22 and extended it
beyond personnel of the Medical Department to employees of other
departments and public bodies whose duties had been assigned for that
purpose. It requires the head of office or District Magistrate to certify the
duty and the Chief Medical Officer to certify death due to COVID-19.
10. The Government Order dated 26.07.2021 prescribes the supporting
records to be uploaded and verified. Item 2 of paragraph 3 requires “
मृतक
/ / ” This requires a
कार्मिककीआरटीपीसीआर एंटीजन सीटीस्कैनकीपठनीयप्रति।
legible copy of the deceased employee's RT-PCR, antigen or CT scan
report. The alternatives expressly provided show that an RT-PCR report
is not the only recognised means of confirming the infection. The
requirement must also be read with the COVID-19 death-certificate form
forming part of the scheme. Item 7 of that form provides:
5
“
यदि कोविडकीजाँचउपरोक्तक्रमांक मेंवर्णितपद्धति सेनहींकीगयीतो
( )”
कोविडप्रमाणितकरनेकाअन्यस्रोत विवरणअंकितकरें

4
WRIC No. - 10090 of 2022
The form thus permits the certifying medical authority to identify
another source of confirmation where COVID testing was not
undertaken by the methods specified in item 5. The scheme recognises
medical certification and does not make the existence of an RT-PCR
report an indispensable condition in every case.
11. The purpose of these requirements is to establish the employee's
qualifying duty, COVID infection and death from that infection, and to
enable the administration to verify the claim. Verification remains
necessary. The requirement of a supporting report, however, must be
applied in keeping with that purpose and the other provisions of the
scheme. Where the Government hospital's contemporaneous records
expressly record a positive antigen result and the respondents accept the
infection and cause of death, the absence of a separate copy of the test
report cannot be treated as absence of proof of COVID-19.
12. In the present case, the State authorities had themselves examined
and recommended the petitioner's claim for payment of compensation.
On the committee's report dated 12.06.2021, the District Magistrate
approved payment, and the approval was communicated on 15.06.2021.
The supporting certificates and records were subsequently verified. The
authorities had thus accepted the claim under the scheme. It was
subsequently rejected solely for want of the positive RT-PCR report,
while the impugned order records all the other required documents as
available.
13. The medical evidence is equally clear. The bed-head ticket records
the positive antigen result at admission, and the hospital's death
proforma records COVID-19 viral pneumonia followed by
cardiopulmonary arrest. In their affidavit, the respondents acknowledge
the employer's communication that the deceased had tested antigen
positive and died from the infection. It further refers to the Chief
Medical Officer's certificate dated 11.06.2021 and acknowledges his
admission on 28.04.2021 and death during treatment on 05.05.2021. The
authenticity of these medical records has not been questioned. The

5
WRIC No. - 10090 of 2022
dispute concerns the absence of a separate report, rather than the
recorded diagnosis or cause of death.
14. The claim must also be considered in the circumstances of the
pandemic in which the employee was treated and died. Families dealing
with serious illness, death and the arrangements that followed could not
reasonably be expected to obtain and preserve every medical paper with
the same ease as in ordinary conditions. This does not dispense with
proof of infection or death. It requires the authorities to give proper
weight to the official records that are available, particularly where those
records have been verified and their material contents are accepted in
their own affidavit.
15. A death registration certificate must likewise be read with the
hospital records and medical certification of the cause of death. Its
wording cannot, by itself, displace the contemporaneous diagnosis and
the cause recorded by the treating hospital. In this case, the hospital's
own death proforma expressly records COVID-19 viral pneumonia.
Cardiopulmonary arrest is recorded as the event that followed it. That
entry provides no basis for disregarding COVID-19 as the underlying
cause of death.
16. The respondents have thus accepted the facts which the missing
report was intended to establish. The supporting certificates have been
verified, the qualifying duty has been accepted, and death from
COVID-19 is acknowledged. The asserted difficulty in uploading a
separate report on the portal is an administrative difficulty and cannot
justify withholding assistance where entitlement under the scheme is
established by the undisputed official records. The rejection for want of
that report, without giving effect to these records and admissions, defeats
the purpose of the scheme and vitiates the impugned order.
17. The petitioner is accordingly entitled to the prescribed ex gratia
amount. The claim had already been examined and approved in June
2021, and the subsequent rejection rests on the documentary objection
considered above. No further factual inquiry is required on that

6
WRIC No. - 10090 of 2022
objection. A direction to reconsider the claim would only prolong
payment which has remained outstanding since the death of the
petitioner's husband in May 2021. A direct direction for release of the
amount is therefore warranted.
18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated
16.11.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra, is quashed.
The State Government, through the Relief Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh,
and the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra, shall take the necessary steps to
release and pay Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakh) to the petitioner as ex
gratia assistance under the scheme within eight weeks from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to
costs.
(Garima Prashad,J.) (Prakash Padia,J.)
October 26, 2026
Sachin Mishra
Digitally signed by :-
SACHIN MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad