SANIKA SANTOSH SHINDE AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
COVID-19 Ex-gratia Compensation - Cut-off Dates in Government Resolutions cannot be Applied Literally to Deny Benefits if Infection was Contracted During Active Duty.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-KOL:1977-DB
Decision Date: 17-03-2026
List of Laws
Constitution of India, Article 226; Government Resolution (GR) Policy; Service Law - Ex-gratia Compensation; Social Welfare Legislation Interpretation
- Facts: The Petitioners are the legal heirs of Santosh Vishnu Shinde, who served as a Junior Clerk at the Civil Court, Chiplun. The deceased was on active duty until May 31, 2021, and proceeded on sanctioned summer vacation from June 1, 2021. He fell ill during this period and was diagnosed with COVID-19 on June 14, 2021, with an SPO2 level of 70%. Despite treatment, he succumbed to the infection on July 3, 2021. The Petitioners sought ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 50,00,000 under Government Resolutions (GR) dated May 29, 2020, and April 25, 2022. However, the State rejected the claim via a communication dated October 26, 2023, primarily because the death occurred after the cut-off date of June 30, 2021, specified in the later GR.
- Procedural Posture: The Petitioners approached the Bombay High Court (Circuit Bench at Kolhapur) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the rejection order and a direction to the State to pay the compensation.
- Issue: Whether the legal heirs are entitled to ex-gratia compensation when the deceased employee contracted COVID-19 while in service but passed away shortly after the prescribed cut-off date of June 30, 2021.
- Holding: Yes, the Petitioners are entitled to the benefit. The Court quashed the impugned rejection and directed the State to pay Rs. 50 lakh within six weeks.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the deceased was on duty within 14 days of his hospitalization, satisfying the core criteria of the original GR dated May 29, 2020. It held that the cut-off date of June 30, 2021, mentioned in the GR dated April 25, 2022, cannot be treated as "sacrosanct" or applied literally to deny benefits to those who contracted the virus during the period but died shortly after. Relying on the precedent in "Vijaya Yashwant Jadhav v. Block Development Officer", the Court emphasized that a restrictive interpretation would be contrary to justice, fairness, and the "values of dignity which animate our constitutional order". The Court concluded that since the infection was contracted during the discharge of duties, the delay of three days beyond the cut-off date for the actual death should not result in the forfeiture of tangible relief.
🔒 For Members Only