Savitri Devi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Commissioner And Secy.

1. Heard Shri Janendra Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.10.2023 passed by the District Level Committee, Lakhimpur Kheri, in which the claim to the petitioner under the scheme of "Mukhyamantri Kisan Durghatna Kalyan Yojan has been rejected.

3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the husband of the petitioner died on 14.08.2022 in a road accident which took place on

12.04.2022 near Village Devaria, Police Station Fardhan, District Lakhimpur Kheri. During treatment husband of the petitioner was referred to the District Hospital, Kheri, where he died on 14.08.2022 due to injuries sustained by him during accident. It is the case of the petitioner that postmortem of the dead body was not conducted and as such petitioner was informed about the accident to the competent authorities including the respondents. The claim under "Kisan Bima Yojna" was preferred on 31.12.2022 by the petitioner as the husband of the petitioner was Khataunidharak Kisan and his name had already been entered in the revenue records against certain plot numbers. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide impugned order dated 12.10.2023 due to non submission of inquest and postmortem report. The rejection of the claim is solely based on the report submitted by respondent nos. 4/5. 2 WRIC No. 10283 of 2025

4. Aggrieved by rejection of her claim by the respondents and review committee headed by the Additional District Magistrate, Kheri, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition before this court.

5. In the impugned order, the committee has recorded a finding that as per the report submitted by the Tehsildar/Sub Divisional Magistrate, the inquest and postmortem report are not available alongwith the claim application and as such the entire claim as preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.

6. During course of the arguments, it has been admitted by learned counsel for the parties that the claim preferred by the petitioner was held to be within the stipulated time as per the Government Order dated

28.2.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been denied her legitimate claim by the respondents only on one ground that she failed to furnish the copy of the postmortem and panchnama. The view so taken by the respondents while passing the impugned order is against the very aim and object of the scheme as formulated under the Government Order dated 28.2.2020. The guidelines framed for disbursement of the amount on the basis of relevant papers i.e, treatment report, death certificate and medical reports were submitted before the respondents and the cause of death of her husband could easily be ascertained by the respondents as well as by the reviewing committee but the claim of the petitioner has been rejected in the most arbitrary manner. Her husband was recorded as owner of the agricultural land and his name has already been mentioned in the khatauni and as such after the death of the husband of the petitioner she is entitled for grant of compensation under the said scheme.

7. Per-contra, the claim of the petitioner has been rebutted by Shri Rakesh Bajpayee, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents by submitting that as per scheme in question it was paramount responsibility of the petitioner to submit the postmortem report of the deceased and while rejecting the claim of the petitioner the respondents have taken a correct and lawful view as the detailed guidelines have been provided, according to which each and every case should be scrutinized strictly as per the Government Order dated 3 WRIC No. 10283 of 2025

28.2.2020. Thus, his submission is that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned.

8. We have proceeded to examine the record and find that the State Government has issued the Government Order dated 28.2.2020 framing guidelines for implementation of "Kisan Bima Yojna" for agriculturist of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The purpose of the scheme in question is to provide social security to the agriculturists and the members of their family. The concerned insurance scheme has been floated by way of financial assistance to the family members of the farmers in case of accidental death of farmers, obviously with the aim and object of reducing the rigours of the sudden loss of an earning hand and a person, who indulged in cultivation of the land. The State Government pays the premium to the insurance company and the said insurance company, in turn, is to pay the maximum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the family member of farmers in State of UP in case of accidental death. The ex- gratia payment is made with the sole object to rehabilitate the family who has lost their beloved one all of a sudden due to natural calamity or an Act of God. The ex-gratia payment means payment which is voluntary and charitable in nature. There is a scheme which is primarily a social welfare measure. Therefore, hyper technicalities should be ignored and equitable consideration must be kept in mind while deciding such matters in question. Such claims are to be seen just to mitigate the hardships of the claimants by way of equitable relief. It is the duty of the Government to safeguard the life and liberty of its citizens as guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India.

9. In the case of Lakshmi Devi vs. Union of India and ors 2015 LawSuit (All) 829, a Division Bench of Circular/Government order, which provides for payment of compensation to the family members of the deceased under National Calamities this Court has considered Emergency Fund. In the said case, on account of non-furnishing of the postmortem report the claim of petitioner was rejected. Finally the Division Bench of this Court had proceeded to consider the aims and objects of the scheme and allowed the writ petition with the observation that in the the holistic view of the matter, relevant provisions should be interpreted very liberally to cover every victim of the natural disaster. 4 WRIC No. 10283 of 2025

10. After a closure scrutiny of the records available before us it transpires that in the report submitted by Lekhpal and Revenue Inspector it was reported that the copy of the First Information Report, postmortem and panchnama had not been made available by the petitioner and as such she is not entitled for seeking claim under the scheme. Over the same report of the Naib Tehsildar made an endorsement and submitted before the Tehsildar that only the panchnama and postmortem are not available and as such applicant is not entitled for the benefit under the scheme. The said endorsement as made by the Naib Tehsildar has been forwarded by the Tehsildar. Entire endorsement and the report is available. It can be inferred by the reports and endorsement that the only deficiency was non submission of inquest and postmortem reports pertaining to the husband of the petitioner.

11. Further more, no material has been brought on record by the respondent to show that the cause of death of the petitioner's husband was not due to road accident but due to some other reason. Therefore, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed without due application of mind. The District Hospital, Lakhimpur Kheri has also given the history of treatment of the deceased which shows that the husband of the petitioner met with an accident. It is important to discuss at this juncture that one inquest has been appended alongwith the writ petition as Annexure-10 and the same as stated under para-6 of the writ petition was not specifically denied by the respondents. The claim of the petitioner cannot be negated solely on the ground that post mortem of the deceased could not be performed.

12. Consequently, we allow this writ petition and quash the impugned order dated 27.10.2023 passed by the District Level Committee headed by Additional District Magistrate, Kheri. In so far as it relates to the petitioner's case. The respondents are directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner afresh taking into consideration the holistic view of the matter in the light of the observations made above, within two months from the date a certified copy is produced before the authority concerned.

13. It is to be borne in mind that the premium paid under the scheme is only for extending benefits to the poor farmers and their families on 5 WRIC No. 10283 of 2025 account of the hardship which arises due to sudden demise of the farmers and as such the claim of the poor family cannot be discarded on the technical grounds. October 30, 2025 Anupam S/- (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Janendra Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.10.2023 passed by the District Level Committee, Lakhimpur Kheri, in which the claim to the petitioner under the scheme of "Mukhyamantri Kisan Durghatna Kalyan Yojan has been rejected.

3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the husband of the petitioner died on 14.08.2022 in a road accident which took place on

12.04.2022 near Village Devaria, Police Station Fardhan, District Lakhimpur Kheri. During treatment husband of the petitioner was referred to the District Hospital, Kheri, where he died on 14.08.2022 due to injuries sustained by him during accident. It is the case of the petitioner that postmortem of the dead body was not conducted and as such petitioner was informed about the accident to the competent authorities including the respondents. The claim under "Kisan Bima Yojna" was preferred on 31.12.2022 by the petitioner as the husband of the petitioner was Khataunidharak Kisan and his name had already been entered in the revenue records against certain plot numbers. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide impugned order dated 12.10.2023 due to non submission of inquest and postmortem report. The rejection of the claim is solely based on the report submitted by respondent nos. 4/5. 2 WRIC No. 10283 of 2025

4. Aggrieved by rejection of her claim by the respondents and review committee headed by the Additional District Magistrate, Kheri, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition before this court.

5. In the impugned order, the committee has recorded a finding that as per the report submitted by the Tehsildar/Sub Divisional Magistrate, the inquest and postmortem report are not available alongwith the claim application and as such the entire claim as preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.

6. During course of the arguments, it has been admitted by learned counsel for the parties that the claim preferred by the petitioner was held to be within the stipulated time as per the Government Order dated

28.2.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been denied her legitimate claim by the respondents only on one ground that she failed to furnish the copy of the postmortem and panchnama. The view so taken by the respondents while passing the impugned order is against the very aim and object of the scheme as formulated under the Government Order dated 28.2.2020. The guidelines framed for disbursement of the amount on the basis of relevant papers i.e, treatment report, death certificate and medical reports were submitted before the respondents and the cause of death of her husband could easily be ascertained by the respondents as well as by the reviewing committee but the claim of the petitioner has been rejected in the most arbitrary manner. Her husband was recorded as owner of the agricultural land and his name has already been mentioned in the khatauni and as such after the death of the husband of the petitioner she is entitled for grant of compensation under the said scheme.

7. Per-contra, the claim of the petitioner has been rebutted by Shri Rakesh Bajpayee, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents by submitting that as per scheme in question it was paramount responsibility of the petitioner to submit the postmortem report of the deceased and while rejecting the claim of the petitioner the respondents have taken a correct and lawful view as the detailed guidelines have been provided, according to which each and every case should be scrutinized strictly as per the Government Order dated 3 WRIC No. 10283 of 2025

28.2.2020. Thus, his submission is that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned.

8. We have proceeded to examine the record and find that the State Government has issued the Government Order dated 28.2.2020 framing guidelines for implementation of "Kisan Bima Yojna" for agriculturist of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The purpose of the scheme in question is to provide social security to the agriculturists and the members of their family. The concerned insurance scheme has been floated by way of financial assistance to the family members of the farmers in case of accidental death of farmers, obviously with the aim and object of reducing the rigours of the sudden loss of an earning hand and a person, who indulged in cultivation of the land. The State Government pays the premium to the insurance company and the said insurance company, in turn, is to pay the maximum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the family member of farmers in State of UP in case of accidental death. The ex- gratia payment is made with the sole object to rehabilitate the family who has lost their beloved one all of a sudden due to natural calamity or an Act of God. The ex-gratia payment means payment which is voluntary and charitable in nature. There is a scheme which is primarily a social welfare measure. Therefore, hyper technicalities should be ignored and equitable consideration must be kept in mind while deciding such matters in question. Such claims are to be seen just to mitigate the hardships of the claimants by way of equitable relief. It is the duty of the Government to safeguard the life and liberty of its citizens as guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India.

9. In the case of Lakshmi Devi vs. Union of India and ors 2015 LawSuit (All) 829, a Division Bench of Circular/Government order, which provides for payment of compensation to the family members of the deceased under National Calamities this Court has considered Emergency Fund. In the said case, on account of non-furnishing of the postmortem report the claim of petitioner was rejected. Finally the Division Bench of this Court had proceeded to consider the aims and objects of the scheme and allowed the writ petition with the observation that in the the holistic view of the matter, relevant provisions should be interpreted very liberally to cover every victim of the natural disaster. 4 WRIC No. 10283 of 2025

10. After a closure scrutiny of the records available before us it transpires that in the report submitted by Lekhpal and Revenue Inspector it was reported that the copy of the First Information Report, postmortem and panchnama had not been made available by the petitioner and as such she is not entitled for seeking claim under the scheme. Over the same report of the Naib Tehsildar made an endorsement and submitted before the Tehsildar that only the panchnama and postmortem are not available and as such applicant is not entitled for the benefit under the scheme. The said endorsement as made by the Naib Tehsildar has been forwarded by the Tehsildar. Entire endorsement and the report is available. It can be inferred by the reports and endorsement that the only deficiency was non submission of inquest and postmortem reports pertaining to the husband of the petitioner.

11. Further more, no material has been brought on record by the respondent to show that the cause of death of the petitioner's husband was not due to road accident but due to some other reason. Therefore, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed without due application of mind. The District Hospital, Lakhimpur Kheri has also given the history of treatment of the deceased which shows that the husband of the petitioner met with an accident. It is important to discuss at this juncture that one inquest has been appended alongwith the writ petition as Annexure-10 and the same as stated under para-6 of the writ petition was not specifically denied by the respondents. The claim of the petitioner cannot be negated solely on the ground that post mortem of the deceased could not be performed.

12. Consequently, we allow this writ petition and quash the impugned order dated 27.10.2023 passed by the District Level Committee headed by Additional District Magistrate, Kheri. In so far as it relates to the petitioner's case. The respondents are directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner afresh taking into consideration the holistic view of the matter in the light of the observations made above, within two months from the date a certified copy is produced before the authority concerned.

13. It is to be borne in mind that the premium paid under the scheme is only for extending benefits to the poor farmers and their families on 5 WRIC No. 10283 of 2025 account of the hardship which arises due to sudden demise of the farmers and as such the claim of the poor family cannot be discarded on the technical grounds. October 30, 2025 Anupam S/- (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench