Allahabad HC Directs Rs 50 Lakh Ex-Gratia to Widow of Head Constable Who Died of Covid-19 on Pandemic Duty

The Lucknow Bench held that a police Head Constable assigned to Covid-19 prevention and awareness work qualifies as a Corona Warrior, rejecting the State's narrow reading of the Government Order.

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay Rs 50 lakh in ex-gratia compensation to Semma Bharti, widow of Late Balwant Pratap, a Head Constable in the police department who died of Covid-19 on 21 April 2021. A Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, sitting at the Lucknow Bench, quashed the State's rejection order dated 27 August 2024, which had denied the claim on the ground that the deceased did not fall within the coverage of the Government Order dated 11 April 2020. The bench, drawing on a line of its own Division Bench precedents and a recent Supreme Court ruling against what it called “consider jurisprudence,” declined to remand the matter and granted immediate relief.

The Dispute Before the Court

Semma Bharti filed Writ-C No. 8906 of 2024 under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking two reliefs: certiorari to quash the rejection order dated 27 August 2024 passed by the opposite party, and a mandamus directing release of ex-gratia of Rs 50 lakh under the Government Order dated 11 April 2020 read with a subsequent notification dated 22 June 2021 issued by the State Government.

Her husband, a Head Constable, had been assigned duty for the prevention and control of Covid-19, including spreading awareness and helping infected persons. He contracted the disease and died. The Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow, certified the death as Covid-19 related vide a certificate dated 15 July 2021. A separate certificate dated 21 June 2021 confirmed that the deceased was engaged in pandemic-related work in his capacity as a police department employee. The Police Department itself issued a recommendation letter dated 12 May 2021 to the District Magistrate, Lucknow, in favour of releasing the ex-gratia amount.

Despite these documents, the competent authority rejected the claim, holding that the deceased did not perform duty that brought him within the expression “COVID roktham, upchar and bachao” — meaning containment of the pandemic, Covid-19 treatment, and protection from infection. The State supported this rejection before the bench.

The Legal Issue: Scope of “Covid Duty” Under the Government Order

The central question was whether the Government Order dated 11 April 2020 and the subsequent notification dated 22 June 2021 covered only those government employees physically deployed in hospitals for treatment purposes, or extended to employees in essential services departments who worked during the pandemic in roles that aided containment.

The petitioner's counsel relied on two Division Bench judgments of the same court. The first, dated 29 May 2023, in Smt. Premlata Pandey v. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No. 17575 of 2023), involved a claim by the dependent of a Head Constable who died of Covid-19. The second, dated 23 July 2024, in Sadhna Sahu v. Union of India and others (Writ-C No. 20071 of 2024), covered deaths during Covid duty more broadly. In both, the Division Bench had allowed the claims.

How the Bench Reasoned

The bench examined the documentary record first. The certificate dated 21 June 2021 showed that the deceased Head Constable was assigned duty for prevention and control of Covid-19, spreading awareness, and helping infected persons. He was, as the bench found, on the front line of pandemic-related work. The Police Department's own recommendation letter of 12 May 2021 supported his widow's claim.

On the legal question, the bench returned to Smt. Premlata Pandey, where a similar Division Bench had held that a myopic interpretation cannot be given to Covid-Duty so as to confine it only to persons specially assigned to treat patients physically in hospitals. The bench in the present case found that reasoning squarely applicable.

The bench also drew on its own recent order in Smt. Pushpa Devi v. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No. 5596 of 2026), decided on 2 July 2026, which concerned an employee of the Electricity Department. In that matter, the bench had held that government employees engaged in ensuring uninterrupted electricity supply for the smooth running of hospitals faced the challenge of the Covid-19 pandemic and could be included as Corona Warriors for the purposes of ex-gratia compensation, even if not directly deployed in a hospital. The bench had articulated a broader principle: government employees in essential services departments — including electricity, water supply, telephone, and police — who worked during the Covid period should be treated as being on Covid-Duty because their work aided the State Government in containing the spread of the virus and in keeping Covid-19 patients in confinement.

Applying that principle, the bench concluded that a Head Constable assigned to pandemic prevention and awareness work in the police department was very much to be treated as a Covid Warrior. The petitioner was held to be fully covered by the Government Order dated 11 April 2020.

On Remand and the “Consider Jurisprudence” Question

Having quashed the rejection order, the bench considered whether to remand the matter to the competent authority for fresh consideration. It chose not to. The bench recorded that the husband of the petitioner had died on 21 April 2021 and the matter had been pending for more than five years. Remanding it would further delay a widow's legitimate claim.

The bench cited a recent Supreme Court judgment in Mahendra Prasad Agarwal v. Arvind Kumar Singh (2026 INSC 175), which had deprecated what the Supreme Court called the “consider jurisprudence” — the routine practice of courts remanding matters back to authorities to “consider” a claim afresh, rather than granting relief directly when it is legally due. The Supreme Court had held: “When a claim of a right is legal and justified, relief must follow.” The Allahabad bench applied that approach and directed the State to release the ex-gratia payment directly.

Order

The Division Bench allowed Writ-C No. 8906 of 2024. The impugned order dated 27 August 2024 was quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities were directed to make payment of ex-gratia compensation as per the Government Order dated 11 April 2020 to Semma Bharti within eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. No order as to costs was made. The order was passed on 3 July 2026.