Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34468 of 2021 Petitioner :- Smt. Sunita Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivakant Singh,Ram Swaroop (Singh) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
Petitioner is the widow, who has lost her husband in an accident while working on field a tree fallen on him. A claim for ex gratia compensation under Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana has been instituted by the petitioner but the authorities apparently have not considered such claim on the ground that no postmortem was conducted on the deceased. Submission is that the scheme itself is for the benefit of agriculturists who died in an accident and it is not necessary that in each and every case postmortem is conducted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon an order dated 4.11.2019 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.34258 of 2019 in which the Court has observed as under:-
"5. It is not disputed that term 'Accident' has been defined in the scheme itself and it is not confined to mere accidental claims. The scheme is beneficiary and a part of social welfare. It has to be widely publicized since it is a social welfare scheme for the poor farmers to get over from tragic condition which takes place due to untimely death of family's bread winner. In the present case, it is not disputed that death was due to severe cold which will entitle petitioner to get benefit of aforesaid scheme. Only reason for denying benefit of said scheme to petitioner is that cause of death is not bona fide as it could not be explained as to how post mortem report disclosed cause of death was due to severe cold. According to respondents, no reason has been shown in the post mortem report which could have entitled petitioner of claim. None of the conditions, which are described so as to deny benefit under said scheme, i.e., suicide, drink, consumption of liquor and involvement in criminal activities, are attracted in the case at hand.
6. Thus, looking to the objective of scheme, it was incumbent upon respondent concerned to verify cause of death of petitioner's husband , which would entitle petitioner for the benefit or otherwise. In our view, petitioner is entitled to benefit. In fact respondents have also not found petitioner disentitled for the same but they have denied it only on the ground that cause of death is not proved by post mortem report. In over view, relevant material has not been examined and concerned authority has looked into the matter in a totally mistaken manner, which is not the intention and purpose of scheme. Matter of the petitioner has not been examined properly.
7. Since no final order has been passed, we dispose of this petition directing District Magistrate concerned, who is also present in Court, to examine the matter afresh in the light of aforesaid scheme/our observation and take appropriate decision expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order."
We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench and considering the object for which the Government Order itself has been issued in respect of the scheme on 28.02.2020, we direct the second respondent to accord consideration to petitioner's claim, keeping in view the above observations, by passing appropriate orders within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that all factual issues in respect of the claim of accident are left open to be examined by the authority competent at the first instance.
Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed off.
Order Date :- 23.12.2021 Ashok Kr.