Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a petition filed by frontline workers compelled to work during COVID-19 pandemic seeking payment of honorarium with interest, a single-judge bench of G. S. Ahluwalia, J., while recognising petitioners’ services rendered during the COVID-19 crisis, held that since the petitioners were compelled to work during the COVID-19 pandemic, respondents cannot run away from their liability to pay their honorarium.
In the instant matter, the State of Madhya Pradesh issued an advertisement in May, 2015 for 453 posts of ECCE Coordinator, Child Development Project, with a monthly honorarium of ₹35,000/-. The tenure was renewed annually and continued until 31-03-2020. Before the expiry of their tenure, a nationwide lockdown was imposed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
On 18-03-2020, the Public Health and Family Welfare Department directed the petitioners and other employees to assist in hospitals and perform other essential public duties. The petitioners were further assigned duties such as distribution of food items to laborers and needy individuals.
On 05.06.2020, respondent 3 sought guidance from respondent 2 regarding the continuation of services of the petitioners, as their term had ended on 31-03-2020. The petitioner 1 continued working until July 2020, while others worked until September 2020. Despite rendering their services during the crisis, honorarium for this period was not paid, leading to the filing of this petition. The petitioners sought relief for payment of honorarium from 01-04-2020 till their actual working period, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
The respondents contended that the original tenure ended on 31-03-2020, and any work done thereafter was without formal contract renewal. It was stated that notices were issued to the Child Development Project Officers for allowing petitioners to work beyond their tenure. It was contended that if the petitioners were found eligible for salary, appropriate action would be taken.
The Court stated that it is undisputed that the tenure ended on 31-03-2020, but due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioners were compelled to work beyond this period. The Court asserted that the petitioners risked their lives in the field, assisting the administration during an unprecedented crisis and instead of recognising their contributions, the respondents denied them their rightful honorarium, citing procedural issues. The Court strongly criticised the respondents’ stance and stated that if officers directed the petitioners to work for public safety, it cannot be termed illegal or mala fide. The Court held that the State cannot evade its liability by shifting blame to subordinate officers.
“Although it is for the State Government to decide whether the services of petitioners were required or not, but since petitioners were compelled to work during the COVID-19 pandemic, respondents cannot run away from their liability to pay the honorarium to the petitioners.”
The Court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to pay the honorarium to the petitioners from 01-04-2020 until their last working day with interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the delayed payment. The Court directed that the entire process must be completed within two months from the date of this order. The Court further directed the State Counsel to communicate the order for necessary compliance.
[Leela Mittal v. State of M.P., Writ Petition No. 27858 of 2022, Decided on 27-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shri R.B.S. Tomar, Counsel for the Petitioners
Shri G.K. Agrawal, Government Advocate, Counsel for the Respondents/State
