A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary passed the order while directing the Uttar Pradesh government to release ₹50 lakh ex gratia compensation in favour of the widow of a Head Constable who died after contracting the virus in April 2021.

The petitioner (Semma Bharti) approached the High Court to challenge an administrative order dated August 27, 2024, that had rejected her claim.

Before the Court, the Petitioner argued that her husband, a Head Constable in the Police Department, contracted COVID-19 while discharging his duties related to the containment of the disease.

Opposing the plea, the state authorities had argued that the petitioner's husband did not perform duties that strictly fell within the expression “COVID roktham, upchar and bachao” (containment, treatment, and protection from infection).

Dealing with her plea and the contentions of both sides, the Bench referred to a certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer of Lucknow, certifying that the death of the husband of the petitioner was due to COVID-19 disease.

The official documents also indicated that the deceased Head Constable was on the front lines, assigned to the prevention and control of COVID-19, as well as spreading awareness and helping infected persons.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the concerned police department had already issued a formal recommendation letter on May 12, 2021, for the release of the ex gratia sum to the District Magistrate, Lucknow.

The Bench referred to a previous coordinate bench order in Premlata Pandey v. State of U.P., wherein a similar issue had been dealt with, and it was held that a myopic interpretation cannot be given to COVID-Duty so as to confine only to those persons who were specially assigned to discharge their duties in the treatment of people physically in hospitals.

The bench also relied on its recent order in Pushpa Devi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 362 wherein it was held that "Government employees engaged in the electricity department, water supply department, telephone department, police department and such other essential services departments who worked during COVID-Period should be taken to be on COVID-Duty as their discharge of duties helped the State Government in containing the spread of pandemic covid-19 virus and also provided an impetus in the treatment and protection of COVID-19 patients by keeping them in confinement”.

The High Court observed that since the deceased in the present case was actively engaged as a Head Constable on frontline pandemic management duties, his family is fully covered by the Government Order dated April 11, 2020. Accordingly, the impugned rejection order was quashed.

Notably, the Court refused to remand the matter back to the competent authority for fresh consideration, considering that the employee passed away on April 21, 2021, and the family's claim had been "hanging fire" for over five years.

While deprecating this practice, the bench referred to the recent Supreme Court judgment in Mahendra Prasad Agarwal Vs Arvind Kumar Singh 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 195, wherein the tendency of courts to repeatedly remand matters to authorities for reconsideration without finally adjudicating rights had been criticized.

Quoting the Apex Court, the Bench noted thus:

"When a claim of a right is legal and justified, relief must follow. The Constitutional or statutory remedies are not intended for academic discourse. If a case deserves relief, it must be granted then and there, unflinchingly if need be", the top Court had observed.

Against this backdrop, the High Court directed the concerned state authorities to release the ₹50 lakh ex-gratia compensation to the petitioner within a period of 8 weeks.