Ex-Gratia Payments Can’t Be Claimed As Matter Of right; Expanding Its Scope Beyond Intended Parameters Will Lead To Unintended Misapplications: Delhi HC
|The Delhi High Court ruled that ex-gratia payments are discretionary and not a matter of right. They are granted as a compassionate gesture in extraordinary circumstances subject to the specific terms and conditions outlined in the governing policy.
The High Court made such observations while dismissing the petition claiming grant of ex gratia compensation of INR 1 Crore filed by a daughter of an Anganwadi worker who succumbed to COVID-19 when the pandemic was at its peak.
The claim arose from the untimely demise of petitioner's mother Late Mrs. Seema Khan, an Anganwadi worker who succumbed to COVID-19 in the year 2021, when the pandemic was at its peak. The Petitioner contended that her mother worked distributing ration and participating in immunization camps which qualified as essential services and fell within the ambit of COVID-19 related duties as provided in the Cabinet Decision but the Respondents rejected this claim. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner approached the High Court.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sanjiv Narula asserted, “Thus, while the Court is empathetic to the Petitioner’s loss, it cannot overlook the object and intent of the policy.”
Advocate Rahul Sharma represented the Petitioner while ASC Rishikesh Kumar represented the Respondent.
It was the petitioner’s case that her mother’s death due to COVID-19 infection, was established from the medical records. Therefore, the Respondent’s decision to deny the compensation to her family, was completely arbitrary and unreasonable. It was also submitted that the petitioner is unmarried and unemployed, has no source of income and tragically had lost both her parents by the age of 22. It was submitted that the situation warranted a more compassionate approach from the Respondents.
The Bench said, “Ex-gratia payments are discretionary and not a matter of right. They are granted as a compassionate gesture in extraordinary circumstances subject to the specific terms and conditions outlined in the governing policy.”
The decision impugned in this writ petition was rendered by the GoM after deliberations in their meeting. This decision specifically examined the applicability of the Cabinet Decision which announced ex-gratia compensation of INR 1 Crore to the families of employees deployed for COVID-19 duties by the GNCTD and who succumbed to the disease during the discharge of their duties. However, in the Petitioner’s case, the GoM concluded that the petitioner’s mother’s role while undeniably valuable and classified under “essential services,” did not qualify as COVID-19 duty or COVID-related duty as envisaged under the Cabinet Decision. The GoM noted that she was neither deployed in a containment zone nor involved in patient care or specialized COVID-19 relief work. The Bench thus observed that the GoM duly considered the Petitioner’s case along with all relevant facts.
“Undoubtedly, as an Anganwadi worker, Petitioner’s mother provided vital services distribution of nutritional food and ration for children and new mothers, yet her services do not meet the narrowly defined criteria, for grant of ex-gratia compensation under the Cabinet Decision No. 2835 of GNCTD dated 13th May, 2020”, it said.
The Bench also found that the decision-making process followed by the GoM was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. The GoM considered the detailed submissions made by the Petitioner and examined supporting documents, including the nature of petitioner’s mother’s duties and her deployment during the pandemic.
“Thus, while the Court is empathetic to the Petitioner’s loss, it cannot overlook the object and intent of the policy. Moreover, the Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution can only ensure adherence to the policy and cannot to expand the scope in a manner that overrides the intent behind the policy”, the Bench held while dismissing the Petition.
The Bench concluded the matter by observing, “Expanding the scope of the ex-gratia scheme beyond its intended parameters risks setting a precedent that could lead to unintended misapplications. Accordingly, the Court is not inclined to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India to intervene in this matter.”
Cause Title: Subata Khan v. Govt Of NCT of Delhi [2024:DHC:8850]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Sharma with Mr. Ashish Gautam, Advocates
Respondent: ASC Rishikesh Kumar, Advocates Sheenu Priya, Sudhir Kumar Shukla & Sudhir