Bombay HC Grants ₹50 Lakh COVID Compensation To MSRTC Supervisor's Widow; Says Field Staff Faced Same Risk As Drivers During Pandemic
The Bombay High Court has held that supervisory staff deputed to manage traffic operations during the COVID-19 pandemic were exposed to the same risk as drivers and conductors, and are therefore entitled to compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs under the applicable Government Resolution and MSRTC circulars. The Court observed that the deceased did his job at the risk to his life in a time when the life of the general public came to a standstill, and the public services, including transport, were kept open for limited services.
A division bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and S.M. Modak was hearing a writ petition filed by the wife of an employee in the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) who had been deputed to the Wadala Depot of BEST for supervising excess traffic. He tested COVID positive on 5 April 2021 and died on 7 April 2021 due to COVID pneumonia. The petitioner sought compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs under the Government Resolution dated 29 May 2020, as extended by subsequent GR dated 14 May 2021, and the MSRTC circular dated 1 June 2020, which provided insurance cover/ex gratia assistance of Rs. 50 lakhs to employees exposed to COVID while on duty. The Corporation rejected the claim by communications dated 21 January 2022, 5 March 2022 and 2 March 2023 on the ground that the deceased was neither a driver involved in interstate transport nor assigned “essential services.”
The Court examined the GRs and circulars and noted that the State Government had extended the benefit of the COVID compensation scheme to all employees of local bodies and State Government public undertakings, including MSRTC. The scheme initially provided insurance coverage of Rs. 50 lakhs, and pending insurance implementation, ex gratia assistance of the same amount. The MSRTC circular dated 1 June 2020 extended the benefit to drivers, conductors, controllers and security guards coming into direct contact with passengers.
The Court noted that the deceased had been deputed to supervise excess traffic at Wadala Depot during the peak pandemic period. Though not a driver, his duties necessarily required interaction with drivers and conductors and exposure to the same working environment. The Court rejected the Corporation's hyper-technical approach in confining the benefit strictly to those performing driving duties. It observed that during the COVID period, public services, including transport, were functioning under severe constraints, and employees discharging field duties were exposed to significant risk.
“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 as the drivers and conductors… the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have taken a narrow view of the Circular… It was part of the duty of the husband of the petitioner to attend the job which he has done at the risk of his life.”
Holding that the Corporation had taken an unduly narrow view, the Court allowed the writ petition. The rejection letters were set aside, and MSRTC was directed to pay the remaining Rs. 45 lakhs (after adjusting Rs. 5 lakhs already paid).
Case Title: Smt. Sunita Bapu Jagtap v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 5699 of 2024]
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 93