Routine employment duties placing officials at higher COVID-19 infection risk constitute "COVID-19 duty" for compensation claims.

The petitioners are the legal heirs of late Sh. Nand Kishore Sharma, a Sub-Inspector in the 103 Battalion, Rapid Action Force of the CRPF

The deceased served during the COVID-19 pandemic until 21.04.2021 and died on 24.04.2021 after testing positive for COVID-19

The petitioners sought ex gratia compensation of Rs. 1 Crore under the GNCTD Cabinet Decision dated 13.05.2020, as well as benefits under the Union of India’s Kendriya Anugrah Rashi and Bharat Ke Veer Fund

The Union of India (Respondents 2 and 3) paid certain terminal benefits but denied specific COVID-related compensation on the grounds that the deceased was performing "routine duty" rather than "COVID duty"

1. Whether the deceased is eligible for the Rs. 1 Crore ex gratia compensation under the GNCTD Cabinet Decision dated 13.05.2020.

2. Whether the Union of India can validly deny COVID-specific benefits based on a distinction between "routine duty" and "COVID duty."

GNCTD Cabinet Decision dated 13.05.2020, which provides Rs. 1 Crore ex gratia to personnel deployed for COVID-19 duties by the GNCTD who expire due to the disease

The precedent established in Madhuri Pandey v. State of NCT of Delhi and Smt. Ram Dulari v. Govt of NCT of Delhi holds that a "carte blanche" or "simpliciter" distinction between routine and COVID duty is impermissible in law; duties that place a person at higher risk of contracting the disease while maintaining public order must be construed as COVID duties

The Court found that the GNCTD Cabinet Decision explicitly applies only to individuals "deployed for COVID-19 duties by Government of NCT of Delhi"

Since the deceased was a CRPF official under the administrative control of the Central Government and not deployed by the GNCTD, he was excluded from this specific scheme

The Court criticized the Union of India’s routine-duty-versus-COVID-duty distinction

Applying the Madhuri Pandey logic, the Court reasoned that in an unprecedented pandemic, frontline workers ensure the survival of the State machinery

If the nature of the deceased's work (e.g., field duty) placed him at a higher risk of contraction, a blanket denial of benefits without engaging with the specific nature of his work is legally untenable

The Court directed the Union of India to reconsider its decision regarding the denial of other COVID-specific schemes without relying on the arbitrary distinction between "routine" and "COVID" duty, in light of the discussed precedents

The petition was disposed of with these directions