Entitlement to COVID-19 Ex-Gratia Compensation Extends to Employees Facilitating Essential Services Through Supervisory Roles.

The Petitioner’s husband, Bapu Jagtap, was an employee of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC).

On March 23, 2021, he was deputed to the Wadala Depot of BEST to supervise traffic.

After performing duties from March 24 to March 28, 2021, he fell ill, tested positive for COVID-19 on April 5, and succumbed to COVID-pneumonia on April 7, 2021.

The Petitioner’s claim for ₹50,00,000/- ex-gratia compensation under the MSRTC circular dated June 1, 2020, was rejected by the Respondents via letters in 2022 and 2023.

The rejection was grounded on the basis that the deceased was not assigned "essential services" and was not a driver involved in interstate transport.

The Respondents instead paid only ₹5,00,000/- under a separate 2021 circular.

1. Whether the deceased employee, working as a traffic supervisor on deputation, is entitled to the benefit of the ex-gratia compensation scheme of ₹50,00,000/- intended for front-line transport staff.

2. Whether the terms of the MSRTC Circular dated June 1, 2020, should be strictly construed to apply only to drivers and conductors, or interpreted broadly to include supervisory staff in contact with such employees.

The Court applied the State Government Resolutions (GR) dated May 29, 2020, and May 14, 2021, which provided ₹50,00,000/- ex-gratia assistance to employees of local bodies and State Public Undertakings dying of COVID-19 while on duty.

It also considered MSRTC Circulars No. 1 of 2020 and No. 32 of 2021 regarding insurance coverage for staff in direct contact with the public.

The Court relied on the principle established in *Ramesh Balu Patil v. State of Maharashtra* that benevolent schemes should not be given narrow meanings.

The Court relied on the principle established in *Sunil Shankar Mohite v. Union of India*, which cautioned against "hyper-technical" approaches that defeat the object of the scheme.

The Court rejected the Respondents’ narrow interpretation that only drivers or conductors were eligible for the higher compensation.

It reasoned that while the deceased was a supervisor, his duties at the Wadala Depot necessitated interaction and contact with drivers and conductors who were in direct contact with the public, thereby exposing him to the same level of risk.

The Court took judicial notice of the "precarious situation" during the pandemic and noted that the deceased performed his duties at the risk of his life when transport services were essential.

Citing *Pradeep Arora v. Director, Health Department*, the Court emphasized that if a service is requisitioned for COVID-related duties (inclusive of transport logistics), the benevolent scheme must apply.

It held that the deceased fell within the parameters of the beneficial circulars.

The Respondents were directed to pay the remaining compensation of ₹45,00,000/- (after adjusting the ₹5,00,000/- already paid) to the Petitioner within eight weeks, failing which interest at 6% per annum would apply.