COVID-19 ex-gratia compensation is confined to deaths during COVID-specific duties, not routine service.

Late Akhilesh Chandra was employed as a shift in-charge/electrician and water pump operator with the Delhi Jal Board. During the first wave of COVID-19, he was posted at the Okhla Sewage Treatment Plant. After developing symptoms on 9 May 2020, he tested positive for COVID-19 and died the same day

His legal heirs sought ₹1 crore ex-gratia compensation under Cabinet Decision No. 2835 dated 13 May 2020, which provided compensation to the family of an employee deployed on COVID-19 duties who died after contracting the infection during such duties

The SDM rejected the claim on the ground that the deceased had not been deployed for COVID-19-related duties.

During the writ proceedings, the Single Judge directed that the matter be placed before the Group of Ministers. The Group of Ministers rejected the claim on 25 September 2023, holding that the deceased had performed routine duties and not COVID-19-specific duties. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 14 November 2024, leading to the present intra-court appeal

Whether the deceased’s duties as shift in-charge/electrician and water pump operator constituted “COVID-19 duties” under Cabinet Decision No. 2835 dated 13 May 2020

Whether the appellants were entitled to ₹1 crore ex-gratia compensation despite the deceased having been engaged in routine duties rather than COVID-19-specific duties

Whether the Single Judge erred in upholding the decision of the Group of Ministers rejecting the compensation claim

The Court applied Cabinet Decision No. 2835 dated 13 May 2020, under which ₹1 crore ex-gratia compensation was payable to the family of an employee, including specified medical and other personnel, who was deployed on COVID-19 duties and died after contracting COVID-19 during the discharge of those duties

The Court interpreted the decision as distinguishing between COVID-19-specific duties—such as treatment, facilitation, or care of COVID-19 patients—and ordinary or routine duties performed during the pandemic

The benefit was therefore confined to employees who contracted the infection while performing duties directly related to COVID-19, and did not extend to all government employees who continued their routine functions during the pandemic

The Court upheld the finding that Akhilesh Chandra’s duties, although vital to public welfare and the uninterrupted functioning of the water supply system, were routine duties and were not shown to involve the treatment, facilitation, or care of COVID-19 patients

The Group of Ministers had specifically noted that the deceased was working as a shift in-charge and was not assigned COVID-19-specific responsibilities; it also observed that the requisite Death Audit Committee report was unavailable

Applying the distinction embedded in the Cabinet Decision between ordinary duties during the pandemic and duties directly connected with COVID-19, the Court held that the deceased’s death did not fall within the intended scope of the ex-gratia scheme

The Court also accepted the Single Judge’s distinction between the present case and Pooja v. State of GNCT of Delhi & Ors., where the deceased had contracted COVID-19 while performing COVID-19-specific duties

Finding no ground to interfere with the Single Judge’s order, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and all pending applications, with no order as to costs