Lab Attendant’s Widow Loses ₹1 Crore COVID Compensation Claim After 5-Year Delay, With No Proof Of COVID Deployment: Delhi HC

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petition should be rejected for having been filed more than five years after the petitioner’s claim was expressly rejected, without a sufficient explanation for the delay.

The court held

The Court declined to entertain the petition because it was filed after more than five years without sufficient explanation and because the record did not establish the deceased’s specific deployment for COVID-19 duties.

It also directed

The petition and any pending applications were dismissed.

01Facts

The petitioner, widow of a Lab Attendant at Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences (MAIDS), sought ₹1 crore ex gratia compensation under Cabinet Decision No. 2835 dated 13 May 2020 after her husband died of COVID-19 in April 2021.

¶ 1–4

MAIDS recommended her claim, but the Revenue Department rejected it on 22 June 2021 because the deceased had performed routine duties and had not been specifically deployed for COVID-19 duty.

¶ 1–4

The petitioner filed the writ petition in 2026, seeking to quash the rejection and obtain compensation with interest.

¶ 6, 8

The respondents opposed the petition on grounds of delay and laches and, on the merits, the absence of proof of specific COVID-19 deployment.

¶ 6, 8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petition should be rejected for having been filed more than five years after the petitioner’s claim was expressly rejected, without a sufficient explanation for the delay.

¶ 8–12

ii.2. Whether the deceased’s death from COVID-19 and his work as a Lab Attendant at MAIDS established eligibility for ex gratia compensation, absent evidence that he was specifically deployed for COVID-19 duties.

¶ 13–15

03Law Applied

A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution may be declined where it is brought after undue delay and laches; although no strict statutory limitation period applies, a claimant must approach the court within a reasonable time.

¶ 10

A later judgment in another litigant’s case does not, by itself, create a fresh cause of action for a person who has not timely pursued their own claim.

¶ 11

Under Cabinet Decision No. 2835 dated 13 May 2020, specific deployment for COVID-19 duty was a condition for the ex gratia payment at issue.

¶ 4

The Court also relied on the Division Bench decision in Prem Wati & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT & Ors., 2026:DHC:6749-DB, which affirmed the distinction between routine duties and COVID-19 duties for compensation eligibility.

¶ 13

04Reasoning

The Court held that the cause of action arose when the rejection was communicated on 22 June 2021, yet the petitioner did not approach the Court until 2026 and offered no cogent explanation or evidence of pursuing the claim in the intervening period.

¶ 8–12

Her reliance on MAIDS’s earlier recommendation did not explain the delay because that recommendation preceded, and was rejected by, the specific order communicated to her.

¶ 9

The Court further found no deployment order, duty roster, certificate, or other evidence showing that the deceased had been assigned COVID-19 duties; the attendance sheet established only that he attended work, not the nature of his duties.

¶ 14

His COVID-19 death, without proof of specific deployment, did not satisfy the eligibility condition, particularly since MAIDS was not a designated COVID-19 hospital and he performed his ordinary duties.

¶ 15