SMT. SUNITA BAPU JAGTAP vs THE CHAIRMAN MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD AND ORS

2026:BHC-AS:9734-DB
WP-5699-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5699 OF 2024
Smt.Sunita Bapu Jagtap,
Age : 46 Years, Occupation : Household,
Residing at : Survey No.376/1/1/2,
Plot No.2, Govind Nagar, Near Chandrabhaga
Lawns, At post : Manmad, Taluka : Nandgaon,
District : Nashik. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The Chairman,
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation Ltd., Mumbai, Having Office
at : Central Office, Maharashtra State
Transport House, Dr. Anandrao Nayar Marg,
Mumbai – 08.
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. ...Respondents
*
Mr.Akhil Kupade i/b. Mr.S.R.Jadhav, Advocates for Petitioner.
Mr.Nitesh Bhutekar a/w Ms.Sejal Singh, Mr.Aaditya Mahamiya and
Mr.Prathamesh Mandlik, Advocates for Respondent Nos.1 to 3–
MSRTC.
Smt.R.A.Salunkhe, AGP, for the Respondent No.4 – State.
1/11
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 20:29:05 :::

WP-5699-2024.doc
*
CORAM : M.S.KARNIK &
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
th
DATE : 24 FEBRUARY 2026
JUDGMENT : (PER : S.M.MODAK, J.)
1. 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. Bapu Jagtap was the employee of
respondent No.1–Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd.
(“MSRTC Ltd.” for short, henceforth) and on relevant date, he was
deputed at Wadala Depot of Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and
th
Transport Undertaking (“BEST” for short, henceforth). He died on 7
April 2021 at Sub-district Hospital, Yevala, District : Nashik on
account of COVID-pneumonia. The petitioner being the wife claimed
compensation from MSRTC Ltd. However, it was rejected and
st th
communicated through letters dated 21 January 2022, 5 March
nd
2022 and 2 March 2023. It was rejected for the reason “deceased
Bapu Jagtap was not assigned essential services and he was not the
driver involved in the interstate transport.”
2. This decision is challenged by way of this petition and there is
prayer for issuing Writ of Mandamus against the respondents to pay
2/11
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 20:29:05 :::

WP-5699-2024.doc
compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh). The petitioner
heavily relied upon the compensation to be paid as per the circular
st
dated 1 June 2020 issued by the MSRTC Ltd. and pleaded that the
benefit can be extended to employees working in MSRTC. There is
also a contention raised that the wording of the circular cannot be
strictly construed so as to mean only those employees doing the driving
job.
3. The respondent No.1 is the Chairman of MSRTC Ltd. The
respondent No.2 is the Divisional Controller – MSRTC – Nashik
Region, Nashik. The respondent No.3 is the Depot Manager of
MSRTC – Nashik Depot and the respondent No.4 is the Government
of Maharashtra. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 through their Affidavit-in-
Reply has opposed the prayer on the ground of non-fulling the
criterion as laid down in the circular in question and second contention
is case of husband of petitioner falls within the purview of circular
th
No.32 of 2021 dated 30 September 2021 issued by the General
Manager of MSRTC Ltd., wherein compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakh) can be paid in case of employees death due to
COVID (but who are not entitled to get either insurance benefit or
compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-).
3/11
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 20:29:05 :::

WP-5699-2024.doc
4. On this background, we have heard learned Advocate Mr.Akhil
Kupade for the petitioner, learned Advocate Mr.Nitesh Bhutekar for
respondent Nos.1 to 3 – MSRTC Ltd., and learned AGP Smt.Reena
Salunkhe, for respondent No.4 – State. The relevant facts need to be
stated. They are as follows:-
(i) The deceased was employee of MSRTC and he was deputed
at BEST Bus Depot – Wadala for supervising the traffic as per
rd
letter dated 23 March 2021.
th
(ii) The deceased joined the duty at Wadala on 24 March 2021.
th
(iii) Deceased worked there till 28 March 2021. Admittedly, the
deceased was not the driver.
(iv) The deceased was not feeling well and hence, he sought leave
th st
from 29 March 2021 till 31 March 2021.
st
(v) He returned to native place and taken treatment from 31
nd
March 2021 till 2 April 2021 in local dispensary.
rd
(vi) He was advised on 3 April 2021 to undergo Corona Virus
Test. He was advised to admit in Corona Centre i.e. Sub-
district Hospital, Yevala.
th
(vii) On 5 April 2021, he was diagnosed as COVID positive.
th
(viii) He died on 7 April 2021. There is a certificate issued by
Sub-district Hospital, Yevala – Nashik certifying his cause of
death. The findings are as follows:-
(a) There is respiratory failure.
(b) Terminal Type I.
(c) Case of ARDS, in case of COVID pneumonia.
4/11
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 20:29:05 :::

WP-5699-2024.doc
(ix) The petitioner filed copy of medical certificate of cause of
death and death certificate issued by Sub-district Hospital,
Yevala.
5. On this background, the wife of the petitioner has made
following correspondence:-
th
(a) She wrote letters to the Divisional Controller on 26 April
st
2021 and 31 January 2022.
st th
(b) MSRTC Ltd. vide their replies dated 21 January 2022, 5
nd
March 2022 and 2 March 2023 has rejected the request for
grant of compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Lakh).
6. We have gone through the correspondence. There is reference of
certain Government Resolutions (“GR” for short), issued by the
Government of Maharashtra and there is reference of certain Circulars,
issued by the MSRTC Ltd. They are as follows:-
th
(i) The petitioner has placed reliance on GR dated 14 May
2021 issued by the Government of Maharashtra. The
th
relevant period prescribed by GR dated 29 May 2020 is
st th
extended from 1 January 2021 up to 30 June 2021.
th
(ii) Whereas as per GR dated 29 May 2020 (on the basis of the
th
order dated 28 March 2020 issued by the Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, providing
Insurance Scheme for health workers and related staff) till the
time the Insurance Scheme comes into force, by way of
5/11
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 20:29:05 :::

WP-5699-2024.doc
interim measure in case of death of employee, ex gratia
assistance of Rs.50,00,000/- was sanctioned.
(iii) There are certain conditions to be fulfilled which relates to
pre-death 14 days attending the duty, certification by
recognized hospitals.
(iv) This Scheme is extended to all local bodies and State
Government Public Undertaking.
st
(v) There is a reference of circular dated 1 June 2020 issued by
MSRTC Ltd. thereby introducing Insurance Scheme / ex-
gratia assistance to drivers, conductors, controllers, security
guards who are coming into direct contact with passengers,
ex-gratia assitance of Rs.50,00,000/- is to be sanctioned. The
conditions are the same as per State GR. The Scheme is in
th
operation till 30 September 2020.
th
(vi) There is a further circular bearing No.32 of 2021 dated 30
September 2022 issued by General Manager, MSRTC Ltd.
th
thereby extending the period till 30 June 2021. In this case,
th
the death occurred on 7 April 2021.
7. The Government of Maharashtra has already clarified the benefit
th
of GR dated 29 May 2020 is extended to all employees working in
local bodies and State Government Public Undertaking. The MSRTC
Ltd. is a State Government Public Undertaking. If we read the GR as
well as Circulars, certain arrangement is made. It is as follows:-
(a) Insurance coverage of Rs.50,00,000/- is to be provided.
6/11
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 20:29:05 :::

WP-5699-2024.doc
(b) Till the time it is provided, ex-gratia assistance of
Rs.50,00,000/- is to be paid.
th
(c) The Circular dated 30 September 2021 further provides ex-
gratia assistance of Rs.5,00,000/- in case of death of an
employee if he is not entitled to get Rs.50,00,000/-.
8. In this case, respondent Nos.1 to 3 have already deposited an
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in the Bank Account of wife of petitioner for
the reason that case of husband of petitioner is ineligible to get
Rs.50,00,000/-. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 have emphasized on no
applicability of the Circular to the case of husband of petitioner.
Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner was not the driver or
rd
conductor. The relieving letter dated 23 March 2021 explains why the
husband of the petitioner was deputed at Wadala depot of BEST. It is
for the purpose of supervising the excess traffic. So whether the Court
is supposed to interpret the Circular in a literal sense or to interpret it
in a broader sense. There are certain judgments delivered by this Court
in similar matters. Useful reference can be made to following
judgments:-
(A) In case of Ramesh Balu Patil V/s. State of Maharashtra, Thr.
Upper Secretary, Public Health Department and Others in
Writ Petition No.15235 of 2022 (Coram : M.S.Karnik & Ajit
7/11
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 20:29:05 :::

WP-5699-2024.doc
B. Kadethankar, JJ.) (High Court of Bombay : Circuit Bench
at Kolhapur) has dealt with a case of COVID death of Data
Entry Operator working in Primary Health Center on
th
contractual basis. The death was on 4 July 2021 which was
th
outside the outer limit of 30 June 2021. It was observed
thus:-
“We hold that the benevolent scheme formulated under
th
the Government Resolution dated 29 May 2020 and
th
subsequent Government Resolution dated 14 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
th
Resolution dated 29 May 2020 read with Government
th
Resolution dated 14 May 2021” .
(B) In another case of Sunil Shankar Mohite V/s. Union of India,
Through its Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi and Others in Writ
Petition No.7359 of 2023 (Coram : R.G.Avachat & Ajit B.
Kadethankar, JJ.) (High Court of Bombay : Circuit Bench at
Kolhapur) has dealt with COVID death of a staff nurse
attached to Police Hospital – Sangli. The said hospital gave a
primary treatment to COVID infected patients and then
transferred them to other hospitals. That hospital was not
recognized for COVID and compensation was denied. The
objection was turned down and it was observed that:-
“We find that it is not only hyper-technical approach of
the concerned authority, but imposing condition which
8/11
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 20:29:05 :::

WP-5699-2024.doc
even does not ind part of the original scheme tempts us
to hold that approach of the respondent authorities is
hostile to the object of the scheme.”
(C) In the case of Pradeep Arora Vs. Director, Health
Department, Government of Maharashtra (Special Leave
Petition No.16860 of 2021), the issue involved before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether it can be said that the
service of the deceased doctor was requisitioned for the
purpose of COVID related duties. It was answered in the
affirmative.
9. There is no dispute that the deceased died due to COVID. We
are inclined to take a view that the husband of the petitioner was
involved in supervising the traffic at Wadala depot and as such, will fall
st
within the parameters of the Circular dated 1 June 2020 and as
th
extended vide Circular dated 30 September 2021. 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. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are inclined
to take a view so as to grant relief to the petitioner.
10. We are constrained to hold that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have
9/11
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 20:29:05 :::

WP-5699-2024.doc
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 can take a judicial notice that the life of general public came
to a standstill and the public services including transport were kept
open for limited services. 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.
11. Record shows that he went on leave on account of ill-health and
hospitalized in Sub-district Hospital, Yevala and finally died due to
COVID. The Court can take a judicial notice of the difficulties faced in
arranging the medicines. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 cannot avoid their
responsibility. The Corona Virus was widespread. The Governments
have exercised the power under the Disaster Management Act, 2005
and the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.
12. For the above discussion, we are inclined to allow the petition by
adjusting the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- which is already paid by
MSRTC Ltd. The petitioner is entitled to get the remaining amount.
Hence, the order:-
-: O R D E R :-
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
10/11
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 20:29:05 :::

WP-5699-2024.doc
st
(ii) The decision communicated through the letters dated 21
th nd
January 2022, 5 March 2022 and 2 March 2023 are set
aside.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.
13. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
14. Pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
11/11
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2026 20:29:05 :::