SMT. SUNITA BAPU JAGTAP V. THE CHAIRMAN, MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT AND ORS 2026:BHC-AS:9734-DB:

DATE: 24/02/2026

COURT: High Court of Bombay

BENCH: Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice SM Modak

FACTS:

Bapu Jagtap, an employee of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. (MSRTC), was deputed on March 23, 2021, to the Wadala Depot of the Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST) for supervising excess traffic during the COVID-19 period. He joined duty on March 24, 2021, and worked until March 28, 2021, after which he fell ill and took leave from March 29 to 31, 2021. Returning to his native place in Nashik, he received treatment at a local dispensary from March 31 to April 2, 2021, and was advised to undergo a COVID-19 test on April 3, 2021. He was admitted to the Sub-district Hospital in Yevala, Nashik, where he tested positive for COVID-19 on April 5, 2021, and succumbed to COVID-pneumonia on April 7, 2021, due to respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), as certified by the hospital.

The petitioner's wife, Satish Sangar, sought Rs. 50 lakh ex-gratia compensation under the Government of Maharashtra's GR dated May 29, 2020 (extended by GR dated May 14, 2021, up to June 30, 2021), which provided insurance coverage or interim ex-gratia for deaths of essential service workers due to COVID-19, applicable to state public undertakings like MSRTC. She relied on MSRTC's circular dated June 1, 2020 (extended by Circular No. 32 of 2021 dated September 30, 2021), which mirrored the GR for frontline transport staff. However, MSRTC rejected her claims via letters dated January 21, 2022, March 5, 2022, and March 2, 2023, stating the deceased was neither assigned to essential services nor a driver in interstate transport. MSRTC had already disbursed Rs. 5 lakh under the fallback provision in Circular No. 32 of 2021 for ineligible COVID deaths.

ISSUES:

The central issue in this writ petition was whether the widow of Bapu Jagtap, an MSRTC employee deputed for traffic supervision at BEST during COVID-19, was entitled to Rs. 50 lakh ex-gratia compensation under the Maharashtra Government's GR dated May 29, 2020 (as extended), and MSRTC's implementing circulars, or if the claim was rightly rejected for the deceased not being a driver or conductor in essential/interstate transport services. The petitioner argued for a broad interpretation of the circulars to include supervisory roles exposing the deceased to similar risks, while respondents contended strict adherence to the circular's wording limited benefits to specific frontline roles, relegating the case to the Rs. 5 lakh fallback provision.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Bombay High Court allowed Writ Petition No. 5699 of 2024, setting aside MSRTC's rejection letters dated January 21, 2022, March 5, 2022, and March 2, 2023. It directed respondents 1 to 3 (MSRTC officials) to pay the petitioner Rs. 45 lakhs (adjusting the already disbursed Rs. 5 lakh) within eight weeks, with 6% per annum interest from the expiry of that period until realization, recognizing the deceased's entitlement under the benevolent COVID compensation scheme.

The court reasoned that the compensation scheme under the GR dated May 29, 2020, and MSRTC's Circular dated June 1, 2020 (extended to June 30, 2021), was a benevolent, interim measure enacted amid the COVID-19 crisis to honor essential workers' sacrifices, and thus warranted a purposive, expansive interpretation rather than a hyper-technical, literal one. Drawing from precedents like Ramesh Balu Patil v. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 15235 of 2022), where the court held that the material date for eligibility was infection contraction rather than death, and Sunil Shankar Mohite v. Union of India (Writ Petition No. 7359 of 2023), which rejected narrow conditions not inherent to the scheme, the judges emphasized that restricting benefits to drivers and conductors alone would defeat the scheme's object of protecting all frontline transport staff exposed to infection risks. The deceased's role in supervising traffic at BEST's Wadala Depot inherently involved interaction with drivers and conductors handling passenger-facing duties, placing him at comparable risk of COVID exposure, especially given the precarious pandemic conditions where public transport was curtailed but deemed essential. The court took judicial notice of the widespread virus transmission, difficulties in medical access, and the invocation of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, underscoring that MSRTC's rejection overlooked these realities and the GR's explicit extension to all state public undertaking employees in essential services.

Further, the High Court critiqued the respondents' stance as adopting a "hostile" and unduly restrictive approach, inconsistent with the Supreme Court's affirmative ruling in Pradeep Arora v. Director, Health Department (Special Leave Petition No. 16860 of 2021), which broadly interpreted "requisitioned" duties to include COVID-related exposures for healthcare workers. Here, the deceased's deputation letter explicitly tasked him with traffic supervision, a frontline function during lockdowns fulfilling the scheme's criteria of pre-death duty attendance (he worked March 24-28, 2021, within the 14-day window) and certification from a recognized hospital confirming COVID-pneumonia as the cause. The fallback Rs. 5 lakh payment under Circular No. 32 of 2021 was deemed supplementary, not substitutive, for ineligible cases, but the court found ineligibility unfounded given the deceased's alignment with the scheme's protective intent. By adjusting the prior payment and imposing a time-bound directive with interest, the ruling balanced fiscal prudence with equitable relief, ensuring the petitioner's financial security while reinforcing that such welfare measures must evolve with judicial empathy to prevent arbitrary denials in public health emergencies.

ANALYSIS:

This Bombay High Court ruling exemplifies the judiciary's role in infusing humanitarian equity into administrative schemes during crises, transforming a potentially rigid bureaucratic rejection into a precedent for inclusive interpretation of welfare benefits. By prioritizing the "object and spirit" of the COVID-19 compensation framework over literal textual constraints, the court advanced transformative constitutionalism under Articles 14, 21, and 39A, ensuring that ex-gratia payments, intended as moral acknowledgments of essential workers' sacrifices reach beyond enumerated roles to encompass ancillary functions like traffic supervision that equally risked life amid unchecked viral spread. The decision's reliance on contemporaneous precedents underscores a consistent judicial trend against "hyper-technical" barriers, critiquing MSRTC's narrow lens as antithetical to the GR's expansive applicability to public undertakings. Moreover, the adjustment of the Rs. 5 lakh payment and interest provision reflect pragmatic adjudication, mitigating respondents' claims of fiscal overreach while deterring future delays, thereby reinforcing accountability in state-backed insurance mechanisms.

Critically, the judgment highlights systemic vulnerabilities in pandemic response policies, where frontline deputation letters (as here) often blur role distinctions, yet administrative rigidity can exacerbate widows' vulnerabilities. The court's invocation of judicial notice for COVID hardships medicine shortages, standstill public life, elevates empathy as a interpretive tool, potentially influencing analogous claims in other sectors like sanitation or logistics. However, it invites scrutiny on scheme sustainability: while benevolent, unchecked expansions could strain public exchequers, suggesting a need for clearer legislative guidelines post-Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita transitions. Overall, this ruling not only secures immediate relief for the petitioner but fortifies judicial oversight as a bulwark against exclusionary implementation, ensuring that "no one left behind" rhetoric translates into tangible equity for grieving families of unsung essential workers.