Electricity Department Employees Ensuring Uninterrupted Supply During Pandemic Qualify as COVID Warriors for Ex-Gratia Compensation

The petitioner, the widow of a deceased employee of the Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (MVVNL), challenged an order dated 06.10.2022 that rejected her claim for ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 50,00,000.

Her husband died of COVID-19 on 23.04.2021 after being assigned duties to ensure uninterrupted power supply to hospitals and oxygen plants.

Despite certifications from the Chief Medical Officer and the Electricity Department confirming his role as a frontline worker, the state rejected the claim, asserting his duties did not constitute "COVID containment or treatment" under the relevant Government Orders.

The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the rejection and a mandamus for the release of payment.

The court applied Government Orders dated 11.04.2020, 20.05.2020, and 22.06.2021, characterizing them as "subordinate welfare legislation" intended to support those managing the pandemic.

It relied on precedents establishing that "COVID Duty" must be interpreted broadly—not just confined to hospital staff—to include essential services like electricity, water, and police (Smt. Premlata Pandey v. State of U.P. and Vipin Kashyap v. State of U.P.).

Furthermore, it applied the "consider jurisdiction" doctrine from Mahendra Prasad Agarwal v. Arvind Kumar Singh (2026 INSC 175), which mandates that courts grant justified relief immediately rather than remanding matters when further delay would be counterproductive.

The court reasoned that a "myopic interpretation" of COVID duties would defeat the purpose of the state’s welfare benefits.

Since the deceased ensured power for life-saving equipment and hospitals, his work was integral to the "containment, treatment, and protection" against the virus.

The court noted that multiple certificates from the Electricity Department and the District Magistrate had already recommended the petitioner for the award, proving the deceased was a frontline worker.

In applying the Supreme Court's stance against "remand culture," the bench determined that since the legal right to compensation was clearly established by the facts and prior case law, there was no need for a de novo review by the state.

It held that the deceased was a "COVID Warrior" entitled to protection under the welfare schemes.

Rather than remanding the case, the court issued a mandamus directing the respondents to pay the ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 50 Lakhs to the petitioner within eight weeks.