Dhruv Goel & Ors. vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.

$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5434/2024
Date of Decision : 20.05.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:

DHRUV GOEL & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocate.

versus

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms Avni Singh (Panel Counsel,
GNCTD) and Mr Vaibhav Sharma,
Advocate.
Mr. Farman Ali, CGSC with Ms.
Usha Jamnal and Ms. Tanya
Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)


1. The petition is for directions to the Government of NCT of Delhi
( GNCTD ) and the Union of India ( Union ) to grant compensation to the
petitioner-legal heirs under the ‘Corona Warriors Matryr Scheme’ ( CWMS )
and ‘Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package’ ( PMGKP ), respectively, on
account of the demise of Dr. Ravinder Kumar Goel ( deceased ).
2. As per the case set up by the petitioners, the deceased was an
empanelled doctor in the ‘Aam Admi Mohalla Clinic, RZB-149, Nihal Vihar
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.05.2026
12:26:07

(Second Shift)’, where he had been rendering his services till 20.04.2021.
However, owing to health complications on account of COVID-19, he was
unable to join his duty after the said date. Further, he is stated to have passed
away on 15.05.2021, while undergoing treatment.
3. Subsequently, in the month of July, 2021, petitioner no. 2- the wife of
the deceased, applied for compensation under the PMGKP. Further, in the
months of September/October, 2021, the authorities at GNCTD initiated the
process for grant of compensation to the petitioners under the CWMS.
Further, the Directorate General of Health Services issued a certificate that
the deceased may have come in direct contact of COVID-19 and may have
contracted the same while on duty. However, at the time of this petition’s
filing, the ‘Death Audit Committee’ ( DAC ) constituted by GNCTD failed to
certify that the deceased had passed away due to COVID-19.
4. The Court, on 24.07.2024 and 25.11.2024, directed GNCTD to
constitute a DAR to verify the cause of the deceased’s death for the purpose
of processing the petitioners’ claim. Subsequently, GNCTD filed a status
report, whereby, it was stated that the DAR had opined that the cause of
death was COVID-19 virus, and also that the relevant file had been
forwarded to the concerned authorities for processing of the petitioners’
claim under the PMGKP as well.
5. On various occasions subsequently, i.e., on 31.01.2025, 27.08.2025,
and 17.09.2025, the Court observed that despite a categorical admission by
GNCTD that the petitioners were entitled to compensation under the
CWMS, the requisite amount had not been released to them. Subsequently,
an amount of Rs. 60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakh only) was released, as
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.05.2026
12:26:07

noted in order dated 17.11.2025.
6. The Court was constrained to direct the GNCTD, vide order dated
24.11.2025, to release the balance compensation amount to the petitioners,
failing which, requisite action was directed to be taken against the officials
responsible for the delay.
7. As per the short affidavit filed on behalf of the Union, the petitioners’
claim for compensation under the PMGKP was rejected and communicated
vide letter dated 07.10.2025 on the ground that as per the scheme, a positive
COVID-19 RT-PCR test result is mandatory for grant of compensation, and
the opinion of the DAC that the deceased passed away due to COVID-19
could not form the basis of the same. Paragraphs no. 11 and 12 of the said
affidavit are reproduced as under:
“11.lt is submitted that, under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package
(PMGKP) Insurance Scheme, submission of a COVID-19 positive test
rep01t is a mandatory and non-relaxable requirement for processing any
claim. Accordingly, upon re-examination of the case in light of the
documents received from the GNCTD, it was observed that the claim of
late Shri R.K. Goel does not qualify for compensation under the PMGKP
Scheme. It is further submitted that the policy guidelines of the PMGKP
Scheme do not provide any scope for relaxation or deviation from the
stipulated eligibility conditions.
12.It is submitted that vide Letter dated 07.l 0.2025, the answering
rejected the claim of the Petitioner, on the ground that the COVID-19 test
report was negative, and the opinion of the Death Audit Committee of the
GNCTD, being based solely on secondary records and issued more than
three years after the date of death, cannot substitute the mandatory
requirement of a laboratory-confirmed positive COVID-19 test report. A
True Copy of Letter dated 07.10.2025 issued by the answering
Respondents are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE R-05 .”

8. The Court, however, is unable to accept the stand taken by the Union.
Although ex gratia payments are subject to the discretion of the respondent-
authorities, it cannot be arbitrarily denied. The deceased has been certified
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.05.2026
12:26:07

by the DAC as having passed away due to the COVID-19 virus. As such,
ought not to be doubted, especially considering that the RT-PCR test, as
noted by the Madras High Court in B.Varalakshmi v. The Secretary to
1
Government of India and Ors. , may not always accurately detect the
infection. The sole purpose of mandating a positive RT-PCR test for grant of
compensation is to ensure that the same is extended only in genuine cases.
The certificate by the DAC also serves the same purpose. Therefore, in cases
such as these, the authorities ought not to stick to technicalities as the same
would frustrate the purpose of PMGKP.
9. In view of the aforesaid, let the Union to reconsider the petitioners’
case and grant them compensation under PMGKP.
10. Insofar as the aspect of grant of interest is concerned, GNCTD, in its
short reply has taken the stand that under the CWMS, there is no provision
for payment of interest on the compensation amount. Further, without
prejudice to the said position, it is also stated that the petitioners only
became entitled to the compensation amount upon fulfilment of the
requirements under CWMS, and the application for the same is approved by
the authorities. Therefore, according to GNCTD, in any case, interest cannot
be granted from the date of the petitioners’ application for compensation.
Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India
2
v. R. Padmanabhan , wherein, while considering whether the petitioner
therein was entitled to ‘reward’ as per the applicable Government Order for
providing information leading to seizure of smuggled gold. The Court

1
Order dated 15.06.2021 Of the Madras High Court at the Madurai Bench in WP (MD) No..7997 of 2021
dated 15.06.2021.
2
(2003) 7 SCC 270
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.05.2026
12:26:07

considered that the nature of the ‘reward’ was ‘ ex-gratia ’ and, therefore, at
the discretion of the Government. As such, it held that a right to the reward
would accrue on the informant only when his entitlement to the same is
determined by the authorities.
11. The provision under Section 3(b) of the Interest Act, 1978 ( Interest
Act ) provides that interest may be granted in proceedings for recovery of
any debt or damages, at the discretion of the Court, from the date from
which the claimant/petitioner seeks interest to the date of institution of the
proceedings. The said provision is extracted below, for reference:
“3. Power of court to allow interest.—(1) In any proceedings for the
recovery of any debt or damages or in any proceedings in which a claim
for interest in respect of any debt or damages already paid is made, the
court may, if it thinks fit, allow interest to the person entitled to the debt
or damages or to the person making such claim, as the case may be, at a
rate not exceeding the current rate of interest, for the whole or part of the
following period, that is to say,—
(a) if the proceedings relate to a debt payable by virtue of a written
instrument at a certain time, then, from the date when the debt is payable
to the date of institution of the proceedings;
(b) if the proceedings do not relate to any such debt, then, from the date
mentioned in this regard in a written notice given by the person entitled
or the person making the claim to the person liable that interest will be
claimed, to the date of institution of the proceedings:
Provided that where the amount of the debt or damages has been repaid
before the institution of the proceedings, interest shall not be allowed
under this section for the period after such repayment.
(2) Where, in any such proceedings as are mentioned in sub-section
(1),—
(a) judgment, order or award is given for a sum which, apart from
interest on damages, exceeds four thousand rupees, and
(b) the sum represents or includes damages in respect of personal
injuries to the plaintiff or any other person, or in respect of a person’s
death,
then, the power conferred by that sub-section shall be exercised so as to
include in that sum interest on those damages or on such part of them as
the court considers appropriate for the whole or part of the period from
the date mentioned in the notice to the date of institution of the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.05.2026
12:26:07

proceedings, unless the court is satisfied that there are special reasons
why no interest should be given in respect of those damages.”
12. The decision of the Supreme Court in R. Padmanabhan squarely
applies to the present case as well. The ex-gratia compensation sought by
the petitioners herein, is also at the discretion of the respondent authorities,
and therefore, they became entitled for the same only upon the respondents’
approval of their application. A perusal of the provision under Section 3(b)
of the Interest Act makes it clear that interest may be granted to the
claimant/petitioner from the date on which he becomes entitled to the
principal amount.
13. However, at this stage, the provision under Section 34 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 ( CPC ), which is extracted below, for reference,
would require consideration.
“34. Interest.— (1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of
money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the
Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from
the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest
adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of
the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent. per
annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum, from the
date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the
Court thinks fit:
Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had
arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest
may exceed six per cent. per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual
rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which
moneys are lent or advanced by nationalised banks in relation to
commercial transactions.
Explanation I.—In this sub-section, “nationalised bank” means a
corresponding new bank as defined in the Banking Companies
(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970).
Explanation II.—For the purposes of this section, a transaction is a
commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or
business of the party incurring the liability.
(2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.05.2026
12:26:07

interest on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of
payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused
such interest, and a separate suit therefor shall not lie.”

14. Although the provisions of the CPC do not strictly apply to
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the underlying
principles may be considered by the Court for guidance in the exercise of its
discretion. It is seen that under Section 34 of the CPC, Courts are
empowered to grant interest, at a reasonable rate, on the decretal amount
from the date of institution of the suit till the date of the decree. Further,
Courts may also grant interest at a rate not exceeding six per cent per annum
from the date of the decree till the date of actual payment to the decree
holder.
15. Further, it is trite law that, when the petitioners are legally entitled to
a certain amount, and the same has not been paid, the party responsible for
withholding the same must pay interest at a reasonable rate as determined by
the Court. Reference, in this regard, may be made to the decision of the
3
Supreme Court in Union of India v. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia .
16. In view thereof, the respondents are directed to pay to the petitioners
interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date on which the
petitioners’ application for compensation is approved by the respondent
authorities, till the date of actual payment.
17. List for compliance on 17.08.2026.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
MAY 20, 2026/p/amg

3
1994 (2) SCC 240
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.05.2026
12:26:07