NANDA DILIP JADHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT AND ANR.

2026:BHC-KOL:9336-DB

                                                                         49-WP-3651-2026.doc


                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 3651 OF 2026


               Nanda Dilip Jadhav                                        ...Petitioner
                         Versus
               The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary         ...Respondents
               Ministry Of Transport And Anr.

                                              ——————
               Mr. Vishwanath Talkute a/w Mr. Mahesh Bhosale, Ms. Sampada Patil, Mr. Shivaji
               Kokare, for the Petitioner.
               Ms. Tejas Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State.
               Mr. Dhananjayrao Rananaware a/w Mr. Shubham Dhoble, Mr. Samarth Chavan,
               for the Respondent No. 2.
                                              ——————
                                                Coram :     SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
                                                            NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
                                                Date      : SEPTEMBER 28, 2026
               P. C. :

               1.        By the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction to

               Respondent No. 2 to comply with the Respondent No. 1's Government

               Resolution (“GR”) dated 29th May, 2020, and the Respondent No. 2’s

               circular dated 1st June, 2020, and to pay the ex-gratia compensation to

               the Petitioner on account of the death of her husband during COVID

               pandemic. The Petitioner's husband was working as a bus conductor

               with Respondent No. 2-Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

               (“MSRTC”). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, statewide lockdown was



               Arya Chavan                       1 of 7
                                                      49-WP-3651-2026.doc


declared and the movement of the general public was restricted.

However, the medical and essential services were activated and

regulated with necessary restrictions. On 22 nd March, 2020, the

Municipal Commissioner directed that MSRTC and BEST would arrange

local transport for emergency service providers, and the Petitioner's

husband, who was working as a conductor, reported to duty. On 29 th

May, 2020, Respondent No. 1 had issued GR providing for ex-gratia

assistance of Rs. 50 lakhs in event of death of employees on duty.

Similar circular was also issued by Respondent No. 2 on 1 st June, 2020.

On 10th June, 2020, Respondent No. 2 passed resolution that to be

entitled for ex-gratia compensation, the deceased should have been on

duty for 15 days prior to death. The Petitioner's husband was working as

a bus conductor at wai depot, right up to the end of October 2020, and

was admitted due to COVID-related symptoms at Vijayshri Hospital and

Polyclinic from 1st November, 2020 to 4th November, 2020, and

succumbed to the virus on 24th November, 2020. The Respondent No. 2

issued a circular for payment of Rs. 5 lakhs compensation for those

ineligible under GR dated 29th May, 2020 and applied the said circular

dated 30th September, 2021 to the Petitioner's husband and declined to

pay ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs and only paid Rs. 5 lakhs.

Hence, the present Petition.

2.      Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that under the


Arya Chavan                     2 of 7
                                                       49-WP-3651-2026.doc


GR dated 29th May, 2020, the Petitioner is entitled to ex-gratia

assistance of Rs. 50 lakhs, as the death of her husband was on duty due

to COVID-19 pandemic. He would further submit that the GR has been

interpreted in various judicial pronouncements of this Court, where the

Courts have liberally interpreted the various clauses of GR and have

granted ex-gratia compensation. He submits that there cannot be any

distinction between bus conductor working in COVID-19 pandemic for

ferrying health workers and the essential service workers. He submits

that the Petitioner's husband had died due to contact with health

workers and other passengers, and was therefore, entitled to ex-gratia

assistance of Rs. 50 lakhs and not Rs. 5 lakhs, which was paid by holding

the Petitioner ineligible under the GR dated 29 th May, 2020. He would

draw attention of this Court to the decisions passed by the Hon'ble

Division Bench of this Court and would submit that in identical cases,

relief has been granted.

3.      Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2-Corporation

would submit that the Petitioner's husband was not performing

essential services as understood in the context of COVID-19 pandemic.

He submits that the Petitioner's husband was on regular duty and the

circular dated 1st June, 2020 makes it clear that employees, who are

working in essential services include survey, tracing, tracking,

prevention, testing, treatment and relief activities. He submits that as


Arya Chavan                     3 of 7
                                                                  49-WP-3651-2026.doc


the Petitioner's husband was not performing any emergency or

essential services, the GR dated 29 th May, 2020 and the circular dated 1 st

June, 2020 do not apply. He submits that in accordance with the

resolution passed by Respondent No. 2, compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs has

been paid to the Petitioner's husband.

4.       We have considered the submissions and perused the record.

5.       The Petitioner's husband was working as bus conductor with

Respondent No. 2 and was not engaged in any COVID-related duties of

survey, tracing, tracking, etc. However, it cannot be disputed that the

Petitioner's husband was discharging duty as bus conductor ferrying the

health workers and other essential service workers and had contracted

COVID virus. The death of the Petitioner's husband was by reason of

succumbing to the virus, as is evident from the medical certificate of the

cause of death. It is specifically pleaded that the Petitioner's husband

was working right till the end of October 2020 and contracted COVID in

November 2020. The reliance placed by Respondent No. 2 on the GR

dated 29th May, 2020 seeking to give a restricted meaning to the GR

dated 29th May, 2020 is unacceptable in view of the various judicial

pronouncements of this Court.

6.       In the case of Sushma Jagannath Shinde vs The State of

Maharashtra And Another1, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court

1    WP No. 13984/24 decided on 23/02/2026 by Bombay High Court


Arya Chavan                                4 of 7
                                                                  49-WP-3651-2026.doc


considered the applicability of the GR dated 29 th May, 2020 to the

Petitioner therein, who was working as peon with the Sales Tax Office.

Examining the GR and the scheme under the said GR dated 29 th May,

2020, the Hon'ble Division Bench held that Clause 3 of the GR expanded

the scope of the staff within the District Administration, Police, Home

Guards, employees of various departments, etc. who have been involved

in COVID-related duties. It held that the Petitioner therein was required

to attend office of Sales Tax for performing his daily official duties and

is required to be regarded as employee, who was involved in discharging

COVID-related duties. It further held that the categories enlisted under

Clause 3 of the GR dated 29th May, 2020 cannot be regarded as

exhaustive and would not constitute a ground for depriving the benefits

to the Petitioner therein.

7.       A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Vijaya

Yashwant Jadhav And Others vs Block Development Officer, Karveer

Panchayat Samittee, Kolhapur, And Others2 where the Petitioner was

working as Extension Officer with the Panchayat Samittee.

8.       In the case of Subodh Nayan Lakeshri vs General Manager

BrihanMumbai Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking And

Another3, the Hon'ble Division Bench applied the GR dated 29 th May,

2020 to a bus conductor working with BEST. In that case the Petitioner's

2    WP No. 17617/24 decided on 10/12/2025 by Bombay High Court
3    WP No. 2411/23 decided on 25/03/2026 by Bombay High Court


Arya Chavan                                5 of 7
                                                                49-WP-3651-2026.doc


father was identically situated, as he was performing his regular duties

during COVID pandemic. The Hon'ble Division Bench has followed the

decisions expanding the scope of GR dated 29 th May, 2020 and directed

the release of ex-gratia compensation.

9.      There is no distinguishing feature demonstrated in the present

case,    which   would   disentitle   the      Petitioner   to     the   ex-gratia

compensation.      Merely   because      the     Petitioner's     husband     was

discharging regular duty as bus conductor, it cannot be said that he

would not be covered by Clause 3 of the GR dated 29th May, 2020, as

transportation of the health workers, police personnel and other

workers working in various departments cannot be said to be not

relatable to COVID pandemic duties. The Petitioner's husband has

succumbed to the COVID virus in his call for duty, and considering the

settled position in law, we are inclined to allow the Petition. The grant

of compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs is on the basis of inapplicability of GR

dated 29th May, 2020 and considering various judicial pronouncements

of this Court, and particularly Subodh Nayan Lakeshri vs General

Manager BrihanMumbai Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking

And Another (supra), where the Petitioner was also bus conductor and

had succumbed to COVID virus, while reporting for duty, the Petitioner

is entitled to ex-gratia compensation.

10.     In light of the above, the Petitioner is entitled to the ex-gratia


Arya Chavan                       6 of 7
                                                          49-WP-3651-2026.doc


compensation under the GR dated 29th May, 2020. Respondent No. 2 is

directed to pay the Petitioner ex-gratia compensation after deducting

the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs, which is already paid expeditiously, and in any

event, within a period of eight weeks from today.

11.     The Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

12.     Applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand

disposed of.




 [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]                     [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]




Arya Chavan                       7 of 7