SMT. SUNITA BAPU JAGTAP v. THE CHAIRMAN MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
Broad Interpretation of COVID-19 Ex-Gratia Schemes: Entitlement of MSRTC Traffic Supervisors to Full Compensation Regardless of Specific Job Designation.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:9734-DB
Decision Date: 24-02-2026
List of Laws
Constitution of India, Article 226; Disaster Management Act, 2005; Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897; Administrative Law - Interpretation of Benevolent Schemes; Government Resolutions and Circulars (MSRTC)
- Facts: Bapu Jagtap, an employee of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. (MSRTC), was deputed to the Wadala Depot of the Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST) for traffic supervision on 23rd March 2021. He served in this capacity until 28th March 2021, after which he fell ill and returned to his native place. On 5th April 2021, he tested positive for COVID-19 and succumbed to COVID-pneumonia on 7th April 2021. His widow, the petitioner, claimed ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- based on a Government Resolution (GR) and MSRTC circulars. The respondents rejected the claim, asserting that the deceased was not assigned "essential services" nor was he a driver in interstate transport, eventually paying only a smaller sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- under a different, more restrictive circular.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to compel the respondents to pay the full ex-gratia amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-.
- Issue: Whether the deceased employee, who was deputed for traffic supervision and not acting as a driver or conductor, is entitled to the ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- under the benevolent scheme formulated for COVID-19 related deaths.
- Holding: Yes, the petitioner is entitled to the full compensation. The court set aside the rejection letters and directed the respondents to pay the remaining balance of Rs. 45,00,000/- with interest if delayed.
- Reasoning: The Court held that benevolent schemes intended for frontline workers during the pandemic must not be interpreted narrowly or in a hyper-technical manner. Although the deceased was not a driver, his duty of supervising traffic necessitated direct interaction with drivers and conductors, exposing him to the same risks as other frontline staff. The Court took judicial notice of the fact that public transport was maintained as an essential service during the pandemic at great personal risk to employees. Relying on precedents like "Ramesh Balu Patil V/s. State of Maharashtra", the Court emphasized that the object of the scheme was to provide relief to those whose services were requisitioned during the crisis. A restrictive interpretation limiting benefits only to drivers would be hostile to the object of the scheme.
🔒 For Members Only