The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has dismissed a review application filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, seeking to overturn a previous order directing the payment of ₹50 lakh ex-gratia compensation to the widow of a police constable who died due to COVID-19. The Court observed that the State could not discriminate against the petitioner when similar benefits had already been extended to other similarly situated individuals.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a writ petition filed by Smt. Krishna Singh, seeking a mandamus for the release of ₹50 lakh ex-gratia compensation. Her husband, Late Vijay Bahadur Singh, a Head Constable in the U.P. Police, passed away due to COVID-19 while performing public duties and ensuring COVID-19 protocols.
On November 2, 2023, the High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of a judgment passed in Smt. Champa Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ-C No. 32178 of 2023). In that case, the court had recognized that employees discharging duties for the prevention and protection of COVID-19 were entitled to compensation under the Government Order (G.O.) dated April 11, 2020. The State subsequently filed the present review application against the order dated November 2, 2023.
Arguments of the Parties
The Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, argued that the judgment in Smt. Champa Devi had been challenged before the Supreme Court. He contended that the petitioner’s case did not fall under the G.O. dated April 11, 2020, and that the claim had been rightly negated by the competent authority. He further submitted that if the order was not reviewed, it would place a “heavy financial burden” and “serious financial implications” on the State exchequer.
Per contra, the counsel for the petitioner argued that the State had already extended benefits to Smt. Champa Devi while delaying the challenge in the Supreme Court. He emphasized that the G.O. dated April 11, 2020, was a welfare measure intended to provide relief to families of employees who rendered services during a horrifying period. He cited several Coordinate Bench decisions where compensation was granted to police personnel and other essential service providers, noting that the State cannot make “artificial distinctions” among its employees.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Division Bench comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Hon’ble Prashant Kumar noted that while the State had challenged the Champa Devi judgment in the Supreme Court with “inordinate delay,” it had already complied with the order and accorded financial benefits to her.
The Court strongly criticized the State’s attempt to deny the claim through a committee meeting convened months after the initial order:
“What we find is that just to meet out the inordinate delay and laches, a very noble device has been coined by the applicants/State respondents by convening the meeting on 26.06.2024 just to negate and reject the rightful claim of the petitioner/opposite party… Such practice cannot be accepted.”
On the scope of review jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court reiterated that the power is limited to correcting “grave and palpable errors” or “mistakes apparent on the face of record.” Citing Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala K. Chaudhary, the Court noted that a review is not an “appeal in disguise” and cannot be used to re-examine merits.
Referring to the interpretation of “COVID duty,” the Court agreed with the view taken in Smt. Pushpa Devi v. State of U.P.:
“We are unable to sustain the order passed by the State Government giving a very narrow interpretation to the covid duty only confining those people, who were specially assigned to discharge their duties in treatment of people physically in hospitals.”
The Court held that employees in essential services like the police, who helped contain the pandemic, are deemed to be on COVID duty under the beneficial G.O. dated April 11, 2020.
Decision
The Court concluded that each aspect of the matter had been considered during the disposal of the original writ petition and there was no “apparent mistake” in the judgment. Finding no plausible reason to discriminate against the petitioner, the Court rejected the review application.
Case Details:
- Case Title: State Of Up And 4 Others Versus Smt Krishna Singh
- Case No.: CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. 409 of 2024
- Bench: Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Hon’ble Prashant Kumar
- Date: April 30, 2026
