AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, widow of Late Sh. Rajender Singh, seeking quashing of the order dated 22.06.2021 bearing No. F.1(58)/Relief/Ex-gratia/2021/4307-4308 passed by Respondent No.1, whereby her claim for ex gratia compensation of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- under Cabinet Decision No.2835 dated 13.05.2020 was rejected, and for a direction to the Respondents to release the said amount along with interest, on the ground that her husband, a Lab Attendant with the Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences (hereafter referred to as ‘MAIDS’), succumbed to COVID-19 while discharging his duties during the pandemic.
Succinctly stated, the petitioner claims that her husband was appointed on a regular basis as a Lab Attendant in Maulana Azad Medical College on 01.07.1987 and, upon the formation of MAIDS with effect from 01.07.2005, was placed on deemed deputation to MAIDS, where he continued to serve till his demise. It is averred that the deceased continued to attend the Institute throughout the pandemic, tested positive for COVID-19 (RT-PCR report dated 18.04.2021), was admitted to Lok Nayak Hospital on 24.04.2021 and unfortunately expired on 27.04.2021. The Death Audit Committee, DGHS, GNCTD, vide its report dated 25.05.2021, certified that the deceased died due to COVID-19.
It has been urged in the petition that on 17.05.2021, the petitioner submitted an application to the Director-Principal, MAIDS, seeking ex gratia compensation of Rs. 1 crore in terms of Cabinet Decision No.2835 dated 13.05.2020, which was forwarded by the Director-Principal, MAIDS, vide letter dated 28.05.2021 to the Revenue Department, GNCTD, with a recommendation for release of the said amount, noting that dental professionals were exposed to a higher risk of COVID-19 infection.
The claim of the petitioner was, however, rejected by Respondent No.1 vide the impugned order dated 22.06.2021, a copy of which was also marked to the petitioner at her residential address. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereunder: -
“With reference to the above cited case, I am directed to inform you that the above case was examined in terms of Cabinet Decision No. 2835 dated 13.05.2020 and it was not found eligible as Late Sh. Rajender Singh, Lab Attendant was performing his routine duty assigned to him and was not deployed specifically for COVID-19 duty, which is a mandatory condition to become eligible for grant of Ex-gratia of Rs. One Crore. This issues with the approval of Competent Authority.”
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that she is entitled to the compensation, as the deceased, being a Lab Attendant in a dental institute, was exposed to aerosol-generating procedures and his claim was recommended by his own employer, and the fact of his death due to COVID-19 is undisputed.
Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the petition suffers from gross delay and laches since the claim of the petitioner was rejected as far back on 22.06.2021, which was duly communicated to the petitioner, and the same was never assailed for more than five years, and the petitioner cannot be permitted to revive a stale claim. On merits, he contends that the petitioner failed to prove that the deceased was specifically deployed for COVID-19 duties, and was only performing regular/routine duties, thus, making him ineligible for compensation under Cabinet Decision No.2835.
The Court has considered the submissions and perused the record.
At the outset, in the opinion of this Court, the decisive aspect is that of delay and laches. The claim of the petitioner was specifically rejected vide order dated 22.06.2021, which, as is evident from the impugned order itself, was marked to the petitioner at her residential address. The cause of action, therefore, arose on 22.06.2021 to challenge the non-grant of compensation. The present petition, however, has been instituted only in the year 2026, that is, after more than five years. The petitioner has not placed on record any material to show that she pursued her claim before any authority at any time during this period; neither has she furnished any cogent explanation for the delay.
The only explanation furnished for the delay that the petitioner continued to believe that her claim would be honoured on the strength of the recommendation of MAIDS cannot be accepted, since the said recommendation dated 28.05.2021 preceded the impugned order, and was considered and declined by Respondent No.1 by a specific order communicated to the petitioner.
Though the Court is not unmindful of the circumstances of the petitioner, a general plea of being a widow without independent means, unsupported by any particulars, cannot account for the complete inaction for over five years after the claim was expressly rejected. Although there is no strict statutory limitation period prescribed for filing a writ petition, courts may reject petitions if they suffer from undue delay and laches or if action is not taken within a “reasonable time”.
The only reason, in substance, put forth for approaching this Court at this belated stage is the pronouncement of judgments in the cases of other litigants. It is well settled that a subsequent judgment rendered in the case of another person does not furnish a fresh cause of action to a litigant who has slept over her rights.
In the present case, no explanation sufficient to account for the prolonged inaction between the rejection of the claim in June, 2021 and the filing of the present petition in the year 2026 has been placed before this Court.
Insofar as the merits of the case are concerned, it would be beneficial to refer to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Prem Wati & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT & Ors.: 2026:DHC:6749-DB, whereby the distinction between routine duties and COVID-19 duties has been affirmed and this Court has declined to grant ex gratia compensation to the claimant therein, noting that the deceased employee was not assigned to discharge any COVID-19 duties.
It has been categorically noted that the petitioner has failed to place on record any document, such as a deployment order, posting order, duty roster or certificate of COVID-duty, to show that the deceased was deployed for COVID-19 duties. The attendance sheet for the month of April, 2021 merely reflects the attendance of the deceased and not the nature of the duties performed by him.
It is pertinent to note that the mere fact that the death of the deceased was caused by COVID-19, which is not in dispute, does not by itself establish that he was deployed for COVID-19 duties. On the petitioner’s own showing, MAIDS was not a designated COVID hospital, and the deceased was discharging his regular duties as a Lab Attendant in the ordinary course of his employment.
Thus, the Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot permit a claim, which stood specifically rejected vide order dated 22.06.2021, to be revived after more than five years merely on the strength of judgments rendered in the cases of other litigants, particularly when no steps were taken by the petitioner to assail the said rejection or to pursue her claim in the intervening period.
In view of the aforesaid, in the peculiar facts of the present case, this Court finds no ground to entertain the present petition.
The petition, along with the pending application(s), if any, stands dismissed.