The Bombay High Court has held that supervisory personnel deployed on field duty during the COVID-19 pandemic faced risks comparable to those encountered by drivers and conductors. The Court ruled that such employees are entitled to ₹50 lakh compensation under applicable government resolutions and departmental circulars.
A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and S.M. Modak delivered the ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by the widow of a deceased employee of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC).
Background of the Case
The petitioner’s husband worked with MSRTC and was deputed to the Wadala Depot of BEST during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. He supervised excess traffic as part of his official duties. He tested positive for COVID-19 on 5 April 2021 and died of COVID pneumonia on 7 April 2021.
After his death, the petitioner sought compensation of ₹50 lakh under the Government Resolution dated 29 May 2020. The State later extended this resolution through another Government Resolution dated 14 May 2021. The petitioner also relied on an MSRTC circular dated 1 June 2020.
These measures provided insurance coverage or ex gratia assistance of ₹50 lakh to employees exposed to COVID-19 while discharging official duties.
MSRTC’s Rejection of the Claim
MSRTC rejected the claim through communications dated 21 January 2022, 5 March 2022, and 2 March 2023. The Corporation contended that the deceased was neither a driver engaged in interstate transport nor assigned to what it termed “essential services.”
Court’s Analysis of the Policy Framework
The High Court examined the relevant government resolutions and circulars. It noted that the State Government had extended the COVID compensation scheme to all employees of local bodies and State public undertakings, including MSRTC.
The Court observed that the scheme initially provided insurance coverage of ₹50 lakh. It also allowed ex gratia payment of the same amount until full implementation of the insurance mechanism.
The MSRTC circular dated 1 June 2020 further extended benefits to drivers, conductors, controllers, and security guards who came into direct contact with passengers.
Supervisory Role and Exposure to Risk
On facts, the Bench found that the deceased supervised excess traffic at the Wadala Depot during a period of severe pandemic restrictions. Although he did not drive buses, his duties required regular interaction with drivers and conductors.
The Court rejected MSRTC’s restrictive interpretation of the policy. It held that authorities could not confine benefits only to those performing driving duties. During the pandemic, field staff maintaining essential transport services faced significant exposure to infection.
The Court observed:
“In discharge of his duty, the deceased was supposed to interact and came in contact with the drivers and conductors who were actually involved in driving the buses, thereby exposing him to the same risk… The respondents have taken a narrow view of the Circular. It was part of his duty to attend work at the risk of his life.”
Relief Granted
The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the rejection communications. It directed MSRTC to release the remaining ₹45 lakh to the petitioner, after adjusting ₹5 lakh already paid.
Case Title: Smt. Sunita Bapu Jagtap v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
