Smt. Devari Annapurna v. T.G

Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the Rythu Bhima amoiint to the petitioner on account of death of her husband Devari Ramchandar by treating his age as 55 years qld as on the date of his death in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MAPEM SATHYANARAYANA Counsel foq the Respondent Nos. 1tq4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5to7: AGP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.8: SRI K. PAVAN KUUAR The Court made the folloqing: ORQEE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19856 of 2024 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 ol the Constitution of India, is fi1ed by the petitioner, sccking the following relief: "...ro issue cLppropriate, u.trtt or order or direction more particularlll one ln the nature of wit of mandqmus decLaing the action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner's appLication for granting Rgthu Bhtma on account of death of her husband Deuari Ramchandar on the pretext thot his age is aboue 60 years without considering thot his age is onlg 55 gears old as on the date of his death as per his Community, NatiuitA and Date of Birth Cerlificate and all other educcttional certificates is illegal, arbitrary, ogoinst the pinciples of natural justice and consequentlA direct the respotldents to gront the Rgthu Bhima omount to the petitioner on occount of death of her husband Deuai Ramchandar bg treating his oge as 55 years old as on the date of his deatl4 in the interest ofjustice...."

2. It is stated that the petitioner is wile of Late Devari Ramchander, who was the pattadar and possessor of agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.2-O0 gts in Sy.No.27/A, Ac.0-04 gts in Sy.No.35/A-E1 and Ac. 1-32 gts in Sy.No.44E, total admeasuring Ac.3-36 gts situated at Annasagar Village, Damaragidda Mandal, Narayanpet District. It is further stated that the petitioner's husband enrolled for "Farmers Group Life Insurance Scheme" (Rythu Bima) in the respondent No.S vide LIC No.292688 as per the Master Policy No.5045045O4 for a sum of Rs.5,OO,O00/-. it is further case of the petitioner that her husband expired on I _-J 2 14 .O5.2024 and even after intimation of the said fact, the respondents are not releasing the insured amount on the ground that the husband of the petitioner was aged more than 60 years as on the date of death and therefore, he is not entitled for benefits under the Rythu Bima Scheme. It is stated that the date of birth of the husband of the petitioner recorded in the community and nativity date of birth certificate and transfer certificate, is

04.08.1968 and he also suffered with 7Oo/o disability due to accident. It is further stated that in Aadhaar Card, the date of birth of deceased was wrongly mentioned as 10.08. 1960 and taking into consideration the wrong Date of Birth as 1O.08.1960, the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner. Hence the writ petition.

3. A counter affidavit has been fi1ed by the respondent No.7, inter o.lia stating that as per G.O.Ms.No.63 Agriculture and Cooperation (Agri.II) department dated 19.06.2018, the eligibility criteria for er farmer to be enrolled under the Rythu Bima Scheme in the State of Telangana is the farmer must be between the age group of 18-59 years as on 15.08.20i8 and in order to implement the Scheme, the data of the farmers holding patta is to be shared by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA) with the Agricultural Extension Officers. it is further stated that as per the t. data shared by the CCLA, the Adhaar Number of the deceased farmer is 795555027 82 and his date of birth as per Aadhaar is

10.08. 1960 and accordingly, his age as on 14.05.2024 (date of death) was 63 years 9 months 5 days. It is also stated that the deceased farmer was not eligible lor the policy for lhe year 2023-24, as his age as on 14.O8.2023 was 62 years, 1l months, and 26 days, which is above the maximum eligible age of 59 years. The counter affidavit further reveals that the deceased farmer was initially enrolled under the Rythu Bima Scheme on 14.08.2018 for the year 2Ol8-19 vide LIC ID No.292688 and Master Policy No.5O45O4504 and he became eligible for the policy years 2O19-2O2O, 2O2O-2O21, 2O2l-2O22 and 2022-2023. However, for the year 2023-24, since his age exceeded the prescribed limit of 59 years, the policy was not renewed, and thus, he was not entitled to any claim under the scheme for that year. It is also submitted that, as per the terms and conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.63 dated 19.06.2018, the age of the farmer is to be determined based on the Aadhaar card. Since the deceased farmer had furnished his particulars based on the Aadhaar card, the same was taken into consideration for determining his eligibility. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the release of the policy amount, as there was no valid policy in force for the year 2023-24 and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 1

4. The respondent No.S has also fi1ed a counter affidavit, reiterating the averments made in the counter aflidavit fiied by Respondent No.7. It is submitted that the deceased farmer, during his lifetime, had the opportunity to correct the date of birth in his Aadhaar card, but he did not do so. It is further submitted that the policy certificate, which is printed in the vernacular language, contains a note at the bottom clearly stating that the insurance cover ceases when the member attains the age of 6O years and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for release of the policy amount, and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Consiclercd the rival submissions ol learned counsel for both sides and peruscd the record.

6. The Statc Government, with a laudable objective, introduced the Farmers Group Life Insurance Scheme, commonly known as the "Rythu Bima Scheme", vide G.O.Ms.No.63 dated 19.06.2018, to provide financial relief and social security to the family members/ dependants of farmers in the event of the loss of a farmer's life due to any reason. In furtherance of its objective, the Government entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Respondent No.8, and formulated specific guidelines for the enrollment of farmers under the said scheme. As per the terms of the MoU, the State Government bears the premium payabie to l Respondent No.8 on behalf of enrolled farmers, and the scheme is renewed annually. Eligibility under the Scheme is confined to digitally signed Pattedar Passbook holders (agricultural landowners) who are in the age group of 18 to 59 years. The age of the insured is to be determined based on the Aadhaar card. In cases where only the year of birth is mentioned in the Aadhaar, the default date is treated as l st July of that particular year. The Agricultural Extension Ofhcer, based on the information recorded in the Dharani Portal, is authorized to update the particulars of the beneficiary and the nominees of the insured. Upon submission of claims, the applications are forwarded to Respondent No.S for verification and disbursement of the claim amount to the nominees. In the present case, the appiication of the deceased farmer for enrollment under the Rythu Bima Scheme ior the policy year 2018-19 was registered with Respondent No.8, vide LIC ID No.292688, after due verification of the enclosed documents including the Aadhaar card, Pattedar passbook, and title deeds. In the insurance certificate issued by Respondent No.8, as well as in the Aadhaar card, the. date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 1O.08.1960. As per the eligibility criteria of the scheme, the farmers in the age group of 18 to 59 years as on 15n August, 2018 (born between 14.O8.1959 and

15.O8.20OO) are eligible for enrollment of policy for the year 2018-

19. Further, in the insurance certi{icate issued to the deceased 6 farmer it is mentioned that the benelit of insurance for the insurer is only upto the age of 60 years. According to the respondents, the deceased fa.rmer crossed the maximum age limit of 59 years as on the date of renewal of policy for the year 2023-24, and therefore, he was ineligible for coverage under the schemb for that policy year. It is also revealed that the Government of Telangana did not include the name of the deceased husband of the petitioner in the list of insured members for the year 2023-24 and onwards, as he had crossed the cligible age limit and was thus disqualified for enrollmen[. Consequently, no premium amount was paid on his behalf for that year.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court tn Hirqnd.ra Kumar as. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & anotherl, emphasizing that the determination ol the cut-off date is within the sphere of the Executive and the Court cannot assume that function. observed as follows: "21. The legal pinciples which gouem the detennination of a att-off date ore ute settled. The pouLer to fx a cut-off date or age-limit is incidental to the regulatory control uthich qn authoitg exercises ouer the selection process. A certain degree of arbttrainess mag appear on the face of ang cut-off or age limtt uhich is prescibed, since a candidate on the urortg side of the line mag stand excluded a.s a consequence. That, houeuer, ts fto reclson to hold that the cut off uthich is prescibed., is arbitrary. In order to declare tlnt a cut-off is arbitrary and ultra uires, it ' lzozo) tu scc .+o r ,4', 1 must be of such a nafure as to leqd to the conclusion thot it has been fxed without ang rotional basis tl)hatsoeuer or is manilesttA unreasonable so as to leod to a conclusion of a uiolation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

27....the uatidttg of the Rule cannot be made to depend on cases of indiuidual hardship Luhich ineuitoblV artse in applging a pincipLe of general oppliccttion. Essentiallg, the detemination of c t-off dates lies in the reaLm of policg. A court in the exercise of the pouter of judicial reuieut does not takeouer the function for itself. Plainlg, it is for the n e- making authoritA to discharge that function while making the Rules.'

8. As per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments, the State is having power to formulate the policy and determine the cut-off date for implementation of the Schemes. As long as the said policy is not discriminative and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the same is based on certain objective considerations and rational basis, the said policy is not amenable to the judicial review. In the instant case, the respondents have prescribed an age limit of 18 to 59 years for farmers' enroilment under the Rythu Bima Scheme, with the object of providing financial relief and social security to the dependants of deceased farmers. The object of the policy is to ensure that some monetary compensation is paid to the family members of farmers who die in harness. The eligibility criteria clearly stipulates that only farmers within the age group of 18 to 59 years are eligible and the date of birth recorded in Aadhaar shall be taken as the determining factor for age. A uniform procedure has I I I I I * 1l \ been prescribed since, in most cases, farmers do not have their date of birth recorded in school or educational records, and hence, the Aadhaar card rs adopted as the standard proof of age. Once a farmer is enrolled under the scheme by furnishing details, including age as per Aadhaar, the terms and conditions agreed upon become binding for the purpose of assessing eligibility and disbursing benefits under the scheme. The policy enunciated by the Governmenr is neither arbitrary nor it suffers from discrimination among the class of farmers so as to warrant judicial interference. No case has been made oLlt by the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary iurisdiction of this court under Articre 226 of the Constitutlon of India. For the aforesaid reasons, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and the same is liab1e to be <lismissed.

9. Accor<1ing11., this Writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellancous petitions pending, if any, shali stand closed. No order as to costs. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/-P. PADMANABHA REDDY ,QRPUTY REGISTRAR ,/ "'- '. \'t- ---J ECTION OFFICER -/ Hyderabad [OUT]

1. One CC to SRl. MADEM SATHYANARAyANA, Advocate IOpUCI 2. Two ccs to GP FoR REVENUE ,High court for the stiie br rJliigana at 3. Two CCs to GP FOR AGRICULfURE, High Court for the State of . Telangana. at Hyderabad [OUT] 4. One CC to SRt K PAVAN KUI4AR, Advocate tOpUC] 5. Two CD Copies BM BS w HIGH COURT DATED:0910412025 ORDER WP.No.19856 of 2024 ) 2 g APfl 2[25 ") t OF.S PAl t .,/ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ I l* 4 o6 I L