LATA SINGH SISODIYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner who is wife of the deceased employee Sarvagya Singh Sisodiya under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dtd. 6/4/2022 passed by Deputy Relief Commissioner, Bhopal whereby her claim under the Mukhyamantri Covid-19 Yodha Kalyan Yojna (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme') for compensation on account of death of her husband while performing Covid-19 duties has been rejected.

(2.) In brief facts of the case are that petitioner's husband was working on the post of Assistant Engineer in Gramin Vikas Yantrika Sewa at Division Agar Malwa. Due to spread of Covid-19 Pandamic he was appointed and posted as observer by order dtd. 17/4/2021. He was entrusted the duty of collection of information as detailed therein and was also to carry out surprise inspection of containment area. While performing the duties entrusted upon him petitioner's husband became Covid-19 positive and eventually expired on 15/5/2021. His two sons also got Covid-19 positive and expired on 8/5/2021 and 6/6/2021 respectively.

(3.) Since the State Government had floated the aforesaid Scheme on 17/4/2020, the petitioner being wife of the deceased applied for award of compensation under the Scheme which provides for grant of Rs.50.00 lakhs to the kin of an employee who has died on account of Covid-19 and also the employee who has died in an accident while performing Covid-19 duties. The claim of petitioner was rejected by respondent No.3 by order dtd. 13/12/2021 on the ground that her husband does not fall under the category enumerated in Clause 3.1 of the Scheme. Being aggrieved by the said order son of petitioner Kunal Singh Sisodiya submitted a representation dtd. 21/12/2021 before respondent No.2 for reconsideration of claim of the petitioner which has been rejected by the impugned order dtd. 6/4/2022 for the reason that petitioner's husband was appointed as observer to establish correspondence and to gather information regarding barricading in rural area hence does not fulfill the eligibility criteria under Clause 3.1 of the Scheme.