State Of Odisha vs. Sujata Singh
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Page 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.454 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950).
State of Odisha …. Petitioner(s) -versus- Sujata Singh and Another …. Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Binoda Kumar Mishra, Adv. (for O.P. No.1)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-07.04.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.04.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to quash the order dated 27.05.2024 passed by the Odisha Human Rights Commission in OHRC Case No. 356 of 2022, and to declare that the deceased does not qualify as a “Covid Warrior” under the applicable Government Guidelines, thereby disentitling the Opposite Party from any compensation thereunder. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
The brief facts of the case are as follows: Page 2
(i) Sanjib Kumar Das, husband of Opposite Party No. 1 (Sujata Singh), was engaged by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC) vide letter No. 32418/BMC dated 06.05.2021 to feed stray animals (bulls and dogs) in the South Eastern Zone of Bhubaneswar during the COVID-19 lockdown period, for the duration 05.05.2021 to 19.05.2021. (ii) The BMC subsequently passed a resolution in an emergency meeting purportedly disengaging Sanjib Kumar Das from the assignment with effect from 17.05.2021, making his last working day 16.05.2021. Whether this resolution was ever communicated to him is disputed between the parties. (iii) On 17.05.2021, the very day of the purported disengagement, Sanjib Kumar Das developed symptoms of fever and cough consistent with COVID-19, and his condition progressively deteriorated with low oxygen saturation. He was admitted to a COVID Hospital on 27.05.2021 and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 via RT-PCR test. He passed away on 03.06.2021. (iv) Sujata Singh filed a petition before the Odisha Human Rights Commission on 04.03.2022 seeking a declaration that her deceased husband be treated as a “Covid Warrior” and prayed for compensation, registered as OHRC Case No. 356 of 2022. (v) The OHRC issued notice to the Collector and District Magistrate, Khurda and the BMC, both of whom submitted reports along with relevant records including the Government Guidelines on Covid Warrior compensation vide Letter No. 17179 dated 20.07.2020, Letter No. 17941 dated 29.07.2020, and Letter No. 22977 dated 08.10.2020, and Page 3
records confirming the engagement and purported disengagement of Sanjib Kumar Das. (vi) After considering all material on record, the OHRC passed an order on 27.05.2024 holding that even assuming disengagement w.e.f. 16.05.2021, the fact that Sanjib Kumar Das tested COVID-19 positive on 27.05.2021, which is within 14 days of his last working day, brought him squarely within the guidelines. The OHRC accordingly recommended release of compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs in favour of Sujata Singh and other next of kin, with 50% to be kept in a Fixed Deposit in a Nationalised Bank. (vii) Hence, the State has filed the current Writ Petition, challenging the abovementioned order of the OHRC.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The engagement of the deceased by the BMC was purely temporary and informal in nature, limited to feeding stray animals during the lockdown for approximately 13 days, and does not constitute “COVID- 19 related duty” as contemplated under the Government Guidelines. Feeding stray animals does not involve direct exposure to COVID-19 patients, participation in pandemic management, contact tracing, or healthcare delivery, and therefore the mandatory eligibility criteria under Para-C of the Guidelines are not met in this case. (ii) Under Para-C of the Government Guidelines, two mandatory conditions must both be satisfied: first, the person must have been drafted by the Government or its authorized agencies to perform Page 4
COVID-19 related duties and responsibilities directly; and second, the contact of COVID-19 infection must have occurred while in active line of duty with the worker not being on any kind of leave. The proviso further requires that the person must test COVID-19 positive within 30 days from the last day of active COVID-19 related duty. Since the deceased was disengaged w.e.f. 17.05.2021 and tested positive on 27.05.2021, after cessation of his assignment, the infection occurred outside the scope of active duty and there is a complete absence of the required duty nexus between the work performed and the contracting of infection. (iii) The OHRC erred in relying purely on the proximity of dates to infer a nexus between duty and infection. A policy prescribing specific eligibility conditions must be strictly complied with and cannot be relaxed on equitable or sympathetic considerations. The OHRC’s approach of treating temporal proximity alone as sufficient to invoke the Guidelines is contrary to Para-C and legally untenable, as it effectively reads out the requirement of infection occurring while in active line of duty. (iv) The death certificate relied upon by the Opposite Party does not conclusively establish COVID-19 as the cause of death, as no specific cause of death is mentioned therein. The causal link between the engagement with the BMC and the death of the deceased has therefore not been established even on a basic evidentiary level. (v) The OHRC failed to appreciate the binding and mandatory character of the Government Guidelines and misapplied the policy. The impugned Page 5
order is arbitrary, contrary to the Guidelines, and suffers from non- consideration of material facts, rendering it unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. The deceased does not fall within the definition of a “COVID Warrior” under the Guidelines and the Opposite Party is not entitled to compensation under the scheme. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The disengagement of the deceased is factually disputed. While the BMC claims disengagement w.e.f. 17.05.2021 through an emergency meeting resolution, there is nothing on record to show that this resolution was ever communicated to Sanjib Kumar Das in the manner in which he was originally engaged, namely through a formal written letter. In the absence of communication of disengagement, the deceased must be considered as having been in continuous engagement from 06.05.2021 onwards. (ii) Even if the disengagement w.e.f. 17.05.2021 is accepted for the sake of argument, the last working day of the deceased would be 16.05.2021. Sanjib Kumar Das tested positive on 27.05.2021, only 11 days from his last working day, which is well within the 30-day window stipulated under the Mandatory Conditions of Eligibility in the Government Guidelines. His symptoms manifested on 17.05.2021 itself, strongly indicating that he contracted the infection while actively engaged in his duty. His hospitalization on 27.05.2021 and death on 03.06.2021 are directly traceable to this infection. The BMC’s position that he is Page 6
ineligible is therefore discriminatory and arbitrary with no legal or factual support. (iii) The work of feeding stray animals during the COVID-19 lockdown in public areas constitutes COVID-19 related duty within the meaning of the Guidelines, as the deceased was engaged by a Government agency precisely because of the pandemic and lockdown conditions, during the peak of the second wave when transmission was extremely high. The entire family suffered: the deceased died, his mother-in-law also died after coming into contact with him, and Sujata Singh herself contracted COVID-19 and survived with great difficulty, leaving her alone and in destitution as the deceased was the sole earning member. The OHRC correctly appreciated all these facts and passed a well-reasoned order. (iv) The Opposite Party also relies on the Supreme Court’s order in Gourav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India1, dated 30.06.2021, wherein the Supreme Court drew inferences regarding consequential deaths due to COVID-19, supporting a purposive reading of compensation eligibility in pandemic-related deaths. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the compensation directed to be released forthwith, with Sanjib Kumar Das declared a Frontline COVID Warrior.
IV. JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS:
Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed before this Court.
1Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7/2021, order dated 30.06.2021. Page 7
The Odisha Government’s Health & Family Welfare Department issued formal notifications and corrigenda in July and October 2020 providing ex gratia assistance of Rs.50 lakh to the spouse/next of kin of any person who “succumb[s] to COVID-19 while in active line of duty” and “is drafted by Government or its agencies to perform COVID-19 related duties,” provided the person was not covered under the Central PMGKP insurance scheme. In particular, the corrigendum dated 29.07.2020 clarifies that the beneficiary must have tested COVID-19 positive within 30 days of his/her last day of active COVID-19 duty.
These conditions are mandatory, the State may provide relief only to those who satisfy all criteria set out in the government order (Guidelines Nos. 17197/H&FW dated 20.07.2020; Corrigendum 17941/H dated 29.07.2020; Guideline No. 22977/H dated 08.10.2020). The notifications were duly published in the Official Gazette and carry the force of governmental policy.
Before examining the eligibility condition, this Court considers it appropriate to acknowledge the extraordinary circumstances in which individuals described as “COVID warriors” rendered their services. The pandemic imposed unprecedented strain on public systems, and those deployed in the field, whether in healthcare, sanitation, policing, or other essential functions, often worked under conditions of uncertainty, risk, and personal sacrifice. Their contribution, in many cases, went beyond the call of duty and merits the highest regard. At the same time, the scheme in question has been structured with defined parameters, Page 8
intended to extend its benefit to those engaged in duties bearing a direct and proximate nexus with COVID-19 management.
Tested against this framework, the first mandatory condition, namely that the individual must have been “drafted by Government or its agencies to perform COVID-19 related duties,” is not satisfied on the facts of the present case. Sanjib Kumar Das was engaged by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation solely for the purpose of feeding stray bulls and dogs during the lockdown period. While such work was undoubtedly carried out in difficult circumstances and served a civic purpose, it does not fall within the category of duties contemplated under the scheme, which is directed towards activities intrinsically connected with pandemic response such as healthcare delivery, containment operations, vaccination, contact tracing, or essential services involving direct exposure to infected persons. There is no material on record to indicate that his assignment formed part of any COVID management strategy or that it entailed interaction with COVID patients or related operations. His engagement, therefore, remains in the nature of animal management rather than pandemic-control duty, and lacks the requisite nexus that the scheme mandates.
For example, in Satyabadi Dehury v. State of Odisha2, a constable was held entitled only because his reserve office became a COVID deployment hub, the Court noted that “there cannot be any iota of doubt” that Mr. Dehury, who “died due to COVID-19 while on active line of duty,” was covered by the notification. Likewise, in Ashok Patro v. State of 2W.P.(C) No.19396 of 2023 Page 9
Odisha3, a hospital pharmacist’s duties were found to carry “inevitable” exposure to COVID patients, supported by an official certification, so he was treated as a “COVID-19 Warrior”. In contrast, no similar nexus is shown here. Mr. Das’s work did not bring him into contact with COVID wards or tasks; it was neither medical nor containment in nature. Feeding stray dogs and bulls is not listed among COVID duties, and the High Court’s compassion in Satyabadi (supra) and Patro (supra) rested on clear exposure to the contagion. In the absence of any comparable connection, the scheme’s first condition fails.
The petitioner (State) has rightly submitted that the policy is conjunctive in nature, requiring both conditions under para-C to be satisfied. Thus, while a person who succumbed to COVID-19 while discharging duties in settings such as a school, hospital, or police reserve, and with a demonstrable nexus to pandemic-related work, may fall within the scheme, the present case stands on a different footing. The reliance placed by the opposite party on a broader or purposive interpretation, or on considerations of sympathy, cannot prevail over the clear and express terms of the guidelines. This Court, while mindful of the circumstances, is required to apply the scheme as it stands, and cannot extend its scope beyond what has been expressly provided therein.
In this regard, the Supreme Court in the case of Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd.4 held as follows: “The statutory interdict of use and enjoyment of the property must be strictly construed. It is well-settled that 3W.P.(C) No.4082 of 2024 4(2003) 2 SCC 111, para 25. Page 10
when a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner or not at all. The State and other authorities while acting under the said Act are only creature of statute. They must act within the four-corners thereof.”
The Court cannot strain language to include cases outside the express scope. If this Court were to hold otherwise, almost any government engagement during the pandemic could retroactively be deemed a COVID duty, contrary to the policy’s design.
The ex gratia assistance in question was conceived as part of the State’s response to an unprecedented public health crisis. In framing such a scheme, the Government has necessarily drawn lines as to who would fall within its fold and to what extent, keeping in view the demands on public resources and the scale of the situation. This Court, while examining a claim under such a scheme, does not sit in appeal over those choices, but is required to see whether the case at hand fits within the framework so laid down.
In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Small Scale Industrial Manufacturers Association (Regd.) v. Union of India5 have had the occasion to consider in detail the scope of judicial review in such cases. It held as follows:
“19. Government has to decide its own priorities and relief to the different sectors. It cannot be disputed that pandemic affected the entire country and barring few of the sectors. However, at the same time, the Government is required to take various measures in different fields/sectors like public health, employment, providing food and shelter to the 5 Writ Petition (C) No. 476 of 2020 Page 11
common people/migrants, transportation of migrants etc. and therefore, as such, the government has announced various financial packages/reliefs. Even the 41 government also suffered due to lockdown, due to unprecedented covid19 pandemic and also even lost the revenue in the form of GST. Still, the Government seems to have come out with various reliefs/packages. Government has its own financial constraints. Therefore, as such, no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the Government/RBI to announce/declare particular relief packages and/or to declare a particular policy, more particularly when many complex issues will arise in the field of economy and what will be the overall effect on the economy of the country for which the courts do not have any expertise and which shall be left to the Government and the RBI to announce the relief packages/economic policy in the form of reliefs on the basis of the advice of the experts. Therefore, no writ of mandamus can be issued.
No State or country can have unlimited resources to spend on any of its projects. That is why it only announces the financial reliefs/packages to the extent it is feasible. The court would not interfere with any opinion formed by the Government if it is based on the relevant facts and circumstances or based on expert advice. It is not normally within the domain of any court to weigh the pros and cons of the policy or to scrutinize it and test the degree of its beneficial or equitable disposition for the purpose of varying, modifying or annulling it, based on howsoever sound and good reasoning, only where it is arbitrary and violative of any Constitutional, statutory or any other provisions of law. When Government forms its policy, it is based on a number of circumstances on facts, law including constraints based on its resources. It is also based on expert opinion. It would be dangerous if court is asked to test the utility, beneficial effect of the policy or its appraisal based on facts set out on affidavits.” Page 12
What follows from the above is that, in matters of this nature, the Court must tread with some restraint. The scheme can certainly be examined to see whether it has been properly applied, but it is not for the Court to widen its scope or reshape its terms on equitable considerations alone. The enquiry, therefore, remains a limited one, whether the case at hand fits within the framework of the scheme as it stands, and not whether the scheme ought to have been framed differently or made more expansive.
The second condition under the scheme requires that the COVID-19 infection be contracted “while in active line of duty.” The State has placed on record that Mr. Das’s engagement came to an end on 16.05.2021, pursuant to a resolution dated 17.05.2021. While the communication of this resolution is disputed, even on the version of the opposite party, the last day of active work would be 16.05.2021. It is also not in dispute that Mr. Das developed symptoms on 17.05.2021 and tested positive on 27.05.2021, thus falling within the 30-day period contemplated under the guidelines.
This Court is conscious of the conditions prevailing during the pandemic, where the precise moment or source of infection was often difficult to ascertain, and the distinction between contraction and detection of the virus remained uncertain. Even so, the scheme requires a reasonable nexus between the infection and the discharge of duty. The 30-day stipulation provides a temporal framework, but does not Page 13
dispense with the need to establish that the infection bore a proximate connection to the assigned duty.
In the present case, although the interval between the last working day and the positive test is relatively short, there is no material to indicate such a duty-related linkage. The reliance placed by the OHRC on temporal proximity alone, though understandable in the circumstances, does not fully satisfy the requirement contemplated under the scheme.
In these circumstances, this Court is constrained to hold that the second condition is not fulfilled, and the conclusion reached by the OHRC cannot be sustained within the framework of the governing guidelines.
This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the notifications issued by the Government constitute a defined and self-contained scheme, which the Court is called upon to apply, not reshape. The impulse to extend relief in cases of hardship is both natural and compelling, particularly in the context of the pandemic, where many acts of service went unrecorded and many losses went unredressed. Yet, the scheme represents a considered exercise of the State’s responsibility, translated into specific terms and conditions that delineate its reach.
To travel beyond those terms, even for reasons that evoke sympathy, would risk unsettling the balance inherent in the policy itself and introduce an element of uncertainty in its application. The Court must
therefore proceed within the contours of the scheme as framed, ensuring that its application remains consistent, even while Page 14
acknowledging that the human situations before it may sometimes call for more than what the law, as it stands, is able to provide.
This Court is not unmindful of the human dimension of the present case. The death of Sanjib Kumar Das during a time of widespread distress and uncertainty is a matter of deep regret, and the hardship faced by his family, particularly the Opposite Party No. 1, evokes genuine sympathy. The Court acknowledges that his engagement, though not falling within the strict contours of the notified scheme, was nonetheless rendered in a difficult period when public life stood severely disrupted. However, sympathy, however compelling, cannot be a substitute for legal entitlement. The Court is bound by the framework of the scheme as notified by the State, and cannot, under the guise of equity, extend its scope beyond what has been expressly provided. To do so would not only be contrary to settled principles governing interpretation of policy schemes but would also unsettle the uniform application of such measures.
V.
CONCLUSION:
Applying the above legal principles, this Court finds that Ms. Sujata Singh (Opposite Party No.1) has not satisfied the statutory conditions of the COVID-19 ex gratia scheme. Mr. Das’s work of feeding stray animals was not a covered COVID-related duty, and his infection occurred after his duty ended, lacking the required duty-connection. Consequently, the recommendation of the Human Rights Commission cannot stand. Page 15
This Court must therefore allow the Writ Petition and set aside the OHRC’s order dated 27.05.2024. 26. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 17th April, 2026/
Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.