Notified COVID-19 ex gratia schemes address death claims; additional service benefits depend on applicable rules and policies.

The petitioners instituted separate Public Interest Litigations concerning frontline personnel deployed at ground level during the COVID-19 pandemic.

They alleged that such personnel were exposed to the risk of infection and death, without adequate provision for insurance, service benefits, bonus, or compensation to their families.

Since both petitions raised substantially the same issue, the High Court clubbed and heard them together.

Pursuant to the Court’s directions, the Deputy Director, Department of Health, Raipur, filed an affidavit stating that the State Government had issued a circular dated 24 September 2021 providing ex gratia assistance of ₹50,000 to the next of kin of every person who died due to COVID-19, from the State Disaster Management Fund.

The State also relied on guidelines issued on 11 September 2021 and 8 October 2021 concerning ex gratia and financial assistance to dependants or relatives of persons who died due to COVID-19.

Whether the State Government had taken adequate steps to provide ex gratia compensation to the families of frontline personnel or other persons who died due to COVID-19, in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court in Reepak Kansal v. Union of India?

Whether the Court should issue further directions concerning insurance, service benefits, and bonus for frontline personnel deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic?

The Court relied principally on Section 12(iii) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, which contemplates guidelines for minimum standards of relief, including ex gratia assistance, in cases of death caused by a disaster.

It applied the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Reepak Kansal v. Union of India, reported in (2021) 9 SCC 251, particularly paragraph 53, directing the National Disaster Management Authority to recommend guidelines for ex gratia assistance for loss of life due to COVID-19 and requiring appropriate guidelines concerning COVID-19 death certificates.

The Court also considered the State’s circular dated 24 September 2021 and guidelines dated 8 October 2021 providing financial assistance to the next of kin, dependants, or relatives of persons who died due to COVID-19.

Questions relating to insurance, service benefits, and bonus were treated as matters governed by competent authorities, applicable service rules, policies, and schemes.

The Court found that the State had substantially addressed the compensation-related grievance by issuing the circular dated 24 September 2021 providing ₹50,000 ex gratia assistance from the State Disaster Management Fund to the next of kin of every person who died due to COVID-19, together with the subsequent guidelines dated 8 October 2021.

On that basis, the Court held that the State had taken the requisite steps pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions in Reepak Kansal.

As to insurance, service benefits, and bonus, the Court declined to prescribe further relief in the PIL jurisdiction, holding that those matters fell within the domain of the competent authorities and the applicable service rules, policies, and schemes.

Since the material on record demonstrated that no further effective direction was necessary, the Court disposed of both petitions.

It declined to issue further directions regarding insurance, service benefits, or bonus, as those matters were governed by the competent authorities and applicable service frameworks.

Accordingly, WPPIL Nos. 46 of 2020 and 55 of 2021 were disposed of, without costs.

The Court clarified that the disposal would not prevent any eligible person or legal heir from claiming benefits or compensation otherwise available under applicable rules, schemes, circulars, or law.