Denial Of Benefit Of Welfare Scheme Due To Administrative Lapses Amounts To Travesty Of Justice: Allahabad High Court Grants Relief To Widow
|The petitioner had approached the Allahabad High Court seeking issuance of a direction to the authorities to pay the claim of the petitioner under “Mukhya Mantri Kishan Evam Sarvhit Beema Yojana” on the death of her husband.
The Allahabad High Court has ordered the recosideration of a widow’s claim to the benefit under Mukhya Mantri Kishan Evam Sarvhit Beema Yojana while observing that the denial of the benefit of a welfare scheme would amount to a travesty of justice, particularly when the delay is clearly attributable to administrative lapses rather than any fault of the claimant.
The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking issuance of a direction to the authorities to pay the claim of the petitioner under “Mukhya Mantri Kishan Evam Sarvhit Beema Yojana” on the death of her husband.
The Division Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad held, “It is indeed striking that while the respondent authorities seek to penalize the petitioner for an alleged delay in submission of the claim, the same authorities themselves took years to decide the matter. Such conduct on the part of the authorities, who allowed the matter to linger for years, renders their reliance on the ground of delay wholly untenable. To deny the petitioner the benefit of a welfare scheme in these circumstances would amount to a travesty of justice, particularly when the delay is clearly attributable to administrative lapses rather than any fault of the claimant. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the negligence or inaction of the authorities.”
Advocate Om Prakash Chaurasia represented the Petitioner while Chief Standing Counsel represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The State Government formulated a welfare scheme, “Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvahit Bima Yojna”, to provide financial assistance to the families of farmers in cases of death or permanent disability arising from contingencies specified under the Scheme. The object of the Scheme is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a farmer who suffers accidental death or permanent disability so that the family may overcome the sudden economic distress caused by the loss of the earning member.
The claim filed by the petitioner was rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the claim was filed beyond the period of limitation.
Reasoning
The Bench found that the petitioner had submitted the claim documents to the then Lekhpal before April 2017. The delay in processing the claim occurred because the said Official neither forwarded the claim to the competent authorities nor handed over the documents to his successor upon his transfer. On a perusal of the records, the Bench further found that a joint report was submitted to the District Magistrate wherein it was recorded that it was found in the enquiry that the then Lekhpal had failed to submit the petitioner’s claim despite having received the necessary document.
It was also borne out from the record that the said officer was ultimately let off with only a warning and continued to receive all pensionary benefits. “Thus, while the concerned official suffered no serious consequence for his negligence, the petitioner has been deprived of the benefit of a welfare scheme which is intended to provide immediate financial assistance in times of distress. The petitioner, having suddenly lost the sole earning member of her family, has been left to struggle without the timely support which the Scheme is meant to providepartmental proceedings were initiated against the said Lekhpal and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was appointed as the Inquiry Officer”, it added.
Considering that the order was conspicuously silent on the material facts borne out from the record which included the submission of the earlier application by the petitioner, the failure of the then Lekhpal to process or forward the claim, and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him for such lapse, the Bench stated, “These facts were material for determining the issue of limitation and required objective consideration. The impugned order thus appears to have been passed in a mechanical and cursory manner, without proper examination of the record, treating the claimant as an adversary rather than as a beneficiary under a welfare scheme.”
Thus, holding the claim of the petitioner to be within the permissible period, the Bench quashed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s claim under the “Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana”. The Bench remanded the matter to the District Magistrate, Ballia, to reconsider the petitioner’s claim afresh and complete the said exercise expeditiously.
Cause Title: Lalsa Devi v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citaiton:2026:AHC:51274-DB)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Om Prakash Chaurasia, Rajendra Pratap Singh, Yakub Ansari
Respondent: Chief Standing Counsel