![\"Orissa](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-130509922,imgsize-62636,width-400,height-225,resizemode-4\/orissa-high-court.jpg\")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\nCUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has quashed a Rs 50 lakh compensation recommended by the Odisha Human Rights Commission (OHRC) to the family of a Bhubaneswar civic worker, ruling that his duties lacked a direct nexus with Covid-19 management and therefore did not qualify under the state\u2019s \u201cCovid Warrior\u201d scheme. In a single-judge bench of Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi passed the judgment recently while considering a petition filed by the state government challenging the OHRC\u2019s May 27, 2024 order granting relief to Sujata Singh, whose husband Sanjib Kumar Das died of Covid-19 in June 2021.Das had been engaged by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation from May 5 to May 19, 2021, to feed stray animals during the lockdown. The civic body later claimed he was disengaged from May 16. He developed symptoms the next day, tested positive on May 27 and died on June 3.The OHRC had ruled that since Das tested positive within 14 days of his last working day, he fell within the eligibility window and recommended Rs 50 lakh compensation.Setting aside the order on April 17, Justice Panigrahi held that eligibility under the scheme hinges not just on timing but on the nature of duty. \u201cThe first mandatory condition\u2026 that the individual must have been \u2018drafted\u2026 to perform Covid-19 related duties,\u2019 is not satisfied,\u201d the Judge said, adding that feeding stray animals, while a civic task, \u201cdoes not fall within\u201d pandemic-response activities like healthcare, containment or contact tracing. The web copy of the judgment was released on April 23.On the second requirement, Justice Panigrahi said mere proximity between duty and infection was insufficient. \u201cThe 30-day stipulation provides a temporal framework, but does not dispense with the need to establish\u201d a link between infection and assigned work, he observed, noting there was \u201cno material\u201d to show such a connection.Rejecting a broader interpretation of the scheme, the bench said, \u201cConsiderations of sympathy cannot prevail over the clear and express terms of the guidelines,\u201d warning that an expansive reading could render \u201calmost any government engagement\u201d during the pandemic eligible.Acknowledging the family\u2019s loss, Justice Panigrahi said, \u201cSympathy\u2026 cannot be a substitute for legal entitlement,\u201d and concluded that \u201cthe recommendation of the Human Rights Commission cannot stand,\u201d formally setting aside the OHRC order.\u201cThis Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the notifications issued by the Government constitute a defined and self-contained scheme, which the Court is called upon to apply, not reshape,\u201d Justice Panigrahi clarified, adding, \u201cThe scheme represents a considered exercise of the State\u2019s responsibility, translated into specific terms and conditions that delineate its reach.To travel beyond those terms, even for reasons that evoke sympathy, would risk unsettling the balance inherent in the policy itself and introduce an element of uncertainty in its application.\u201d<\/div>\n