CASE NAME: Smt. Pushpa Devi v State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko. and 2 Others
CITATION: 2026:AHC-LKO:42774-DB
CASE NUMBER: WRIT – C No. – 5596 of 2026
COURT: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Lucknow
DATE OF JUDGMENT: July 2, 2026
QUORUM: Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary and Justice Shekhar B. Saraf
FACTS:
The petitioner is the widow of Late Sunder Lal, who died due to COVID-19 in 2021. Her husband was an employee of the Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (MVVNL) and he got infected with COVID 19 disease while discharging his duties with respect to the containment of COVID-19 disease. The deceased worked for the electricity department and was assigned duty for maintenance and supply of electricity to hospitals, oxygen plants, people staying at homes and others. A Government Order dated 11.04.2020 and subsequent notifications dated 22.06.2021 of the State Government entitled people who served during the pandemic to contain the disease and died while discharging their duty, for an ex-gratia payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rs. 50 Lakhs). However, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was held not to be covered under the Government Order dated 11.04.2020. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has sought a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
ISSUES:
- Whether the deceased employee of the electricity department qualified as a Covid Warrior and fulfilled the requirements for entitlement under the Government Order dated 11.04.2020.
- Whether the interpretation of the term Covid Warrior is limited to only to those persons, who were specially assigned to discharge their duties in treatment of people physically in hospitals.
- Whether the Government Order dated 6.10.2022, rejecting the petitioner’s claim was valid or not.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
CASE LAWS:
- Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others [Writ-C No. 34909 of 2023]
- Vipin Kashyap Vs. State of U.P. and others [Writ-C No. 42989 of 2025]
- Smt. Premlata Pandey Versus State of U.P. and 3 others [Writ-C No.17575 of 2023]
- Mahendra Prasad Agarwal Vs. Arvind Kumar Singh [2026 INSC 175]
ARGUMENTS:
Petitioner:
The petitioner claimed that her husband performed important duties at the front line in providing uninterrupted supply of electricity to hospitals and oxygen plants during the pandemic. His contribution was indispensable to promise the healthcare system and to cope with the pandemic. She relied on the official documents provided by the Chief Medical Officer and the Electricity Department that stated the cause of death of the husband- contracting COVID-19 at work. Further, the Electricity Department and the District Magistrate made recommendations to grant the payments. Moreover, the petitioner relied on previous judgements by the Division Bench stating that those people who performed important services during the pandemic should be regarded as COVID warriors regardless of the absence of direct patient care.
Respondent:
The respondent has supported the impugned order and submitted that the husband of the petitioner (deceased) did not perform any duty so as to come within the expression of “COVID roktham, upchar and bachao” i.e. containment of COVID pandemic/COVID-19 treatment and protection from infection of COVID.
ANALYSIS:
The Court rejected the narrow interpretation given by the authorities, stating that 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 treatment of people physically in hospitals. Previous cases were referred to that held, that the electricity department, water supply department, telephone department, police department and such other essential services departments who worked during COVID-Period should be covered under ‘Covid Warriors’. The certificates in record showed that the deceased had been continuously supplying electricity to hospitals, oxygen plants, and residences during the pandemic. The Bench pointed out that the Government orders were welfare legislation and thus, necessary to be interpreted liberally and reasonably. The Bench further noted that the petitioner had already waited for over five years seeking remedy. The Court also based its decision against remanding the case again, on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Mahendra Prasad Agarwal v. Arvind Kumar Singh—that in cases of clear entitlement, courts ought to avoid undue delay in granting justice.
JUDGEMENT:
The writ petition was allowed with consequential reliefs. Accordingly, the respondents/ authority concerned was directed to make payment of ex-gratia compensation as per the Government Order dated 11.04.2020 to the petitioner.
CONCLUSION:
The decision reinforces the principle that welfare legislations are to be construed liberally and purposefully. The Allahabad High Court highlighted the fact that the fight against COVID-19 also required people providing essential services other than medical practitioners. By treating employees of the electricity department as COVID Warriors, the Court has expanded the scope of the Government’s compensation scheme to ensure that dependents/ family members of the essential frontline workers get the benefits intended. The ruling also discourages unwarranted remands and delay of cases when a clear entitlement has been already established.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: SOMSUTA PAUL
Read the judgment copy below:
Pushpa Devi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko.
