Smt. Urmila Devi vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17910 of 2026
Smt. Urmila Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Neelabh Srivastava, Uma Shanker,
Vijay Shankar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
AFR
Court No. - 40
HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Garima Prashad, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.N. Maurya, learned
Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner, by means of the present writ petition, has assailed the
order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the respondent No.2/District
Magistrate, Prayagraj, whereby the claim of the petitioner under the
Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna has been rejected.
3. The case of the petitioner is that her husband, namely Vinay Yadav,
was an agriculturist who died in a road accident involving a motorcycle
on 03.06.2025. After his death, the petitioner applied for compensation
under the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna framed under
the Government Order dated 28.02.2020. During consideration of the
claim, an inquiry was conducted at the level of the District Magistrate
through subordinate authorities; however, no notice or opportunity of
hearing was afforded to the petitioner in the course of such inquiry.
4. The impugned order reflects that since neither postmortem report nor
panchanama was available on record before the District Magistrate, the
claim was rejected on the ground that under the Government Order dated
28.02.2020, submission of postmortem report or panchanama was
mandatory to establish accidental death and, in absence thereof, the claim
was not covered under the scheme.

WRIC No. 17910 of 2026
2
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the impugned
order, contended that sufficient material existed on record to establish that
the death of the deceased was accidental in nature. It has been submitted
that an FIR was lodged on 16.07.2025 against vehicle No. UP70 HK
5914. The police also prepared the site plan regarding the accident and
after investigation submitted chargesheet against the owner of the said
vehicle. It has been further submitted that the status of the deceased as an
agriculturist has never been disputed and the claim of the petitioner has
been rejected solely on the ground that postmortem report and
panchanama were not available on record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the right to seek
compensation under the scheme flows from the Government Order itself
and is a beneficial right. It is contended that if the District Magistrate had
any doubt regarding the cause of death of the deceased, he ought to have
issued notice and afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to establish that
the death was accidental and that she fulfilled the conditions of the
scheme. It is further contended that rejection of such claim entails serious
civil and pecuniary consequences and, therefore, compliance with the
principles of natural justice was mandatory before passing the impugned
order. It is also argued that the FIR, injury report and other materials on
record clearly establish accidental death and that the impugned order
reflects complete non-application of mind.
7. Per contra, learned Chief Standing Counsel submits that under the
Government Order, either a postmortem report or panchanama is required
to be furnished to establish accidental death and, since neither of the said
documents was available on record, the District Magistrate has committed
no illegality in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. It is, however, fairly
admitted that there is no other ineligibility or impediment in allowing the
claim.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Upon consideration of the pleadings and submissions, the following
issues arise for determination:
(i) Whether non-submission of documents contemplated under the
Government Order dated 28.02.2020, including postmortem report
or panchanama, is fatal to a claim under the scheme, or whether
such requirements are procedural and cannot be enforced so

WRIC No. 17910 of 2026
3
rigidly as to defeat the object of the scheme, particularly where
other material indicates accidental death?
(ii) Whether, in cases where the competent authority entertains
doubt regarding genuineness of the accident or eligibility of the
claimant and proceeds to conduct an inquiry under the scheme,
such inquiry can be conducted ex parte and behind the back of the
claimant without affording notice and opportunity of hearing,
despite rejection of the claim entailing serious civil and pecuniary
consequences?
9. Before adverting to the aforesaid issues, this Court may note that the
scheme in question is a beneficial and benevolent welfare scheme framed
by the State Government for providing financial assistance to the families
of agriculturists who suffer due to accidental death of the sole bread
earner of the family. The scheme has been introduced keeping in view the
agricultural character of the country and the hardships faced by
agriculturist families upon sudden accidental death of the earning
member. The object of the scheme is clearly remedial and welfare
oriented.
10. It is well settled that beneficial and welfare schemes framed by the
State, even if not statutory in nature, must receive a liberal and purposive
interpretation so as to advance their object rather than frustrate it by
adopting a hyper-technical approach. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shiv Kumar Joshi , (2000) 1
, held that beneficial provisions are required to be construed
SCC 98
liberally in favour of the beneficiaries (the class of persons they are meant
to protect) rather than adopting a restrictive interpretation that defeats the
statutory objective. Similarly, in B.D. Shetty v. CEAT Ltd. , (2002) 1 SCC
, it was observed that welfare-oriented provisions must be interpreted
193
in a manner which furthers their object. The Court ruled that if two views
are possible, the view that furthers and advances the legislative intent
must be preferred over one that thwarts it.
11. At the same time, there can be no dispute that the authorities are
required to ensure genuineness of claims and prevent fraudulent claims
under the scheme. It is for such purpose that documents such as
postmortem report or panchanama have been contemplated under the
Government Order. However, such procedural requirements cannot be

WRIC No. 17910 of 2026
4
elevated to a position where they defeat the very object and intent of the
scheme itself. The requirement of such documents is intended to aid and
facilitate the competent authority in arriving at satisfaction regarding the
genuineness of the claim and not to frustrate the claim itself where other
reliable materials are available on record.
12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the documents required under
the scheme cannot be treated as ends in themselves. They are only means
to achieve the larger purpose of the scheme, namely grant of
compensation to genuine dependents of deceased agriculturists. The
procedural requirements under a beneficial scheme cannot be placed
above the substantive object sought to be achieved by the scheme.
13. In cases where postmortem report or panchanama is not available, the
competent authority, namely the District Magistrate, is not expected to
reject the claim mechanically. Rather, it becomes the duty of the authority
to conduct or cause to be conducted a proper inquiry regarding the
genuineness of the accident, the status of the deceased as an agriculturist
and other relevant facts. If materials such as FIR, site plan, injury report,
police investigation, chargesheet or other contemporaneous records exist
on record, the same are required to be duly considered while arriving at
satisfaction regarding the claim.
14. This Court is constrained to observe that such a benevolent scheme
appears to have been reduced into a mere technical exercise by the
executive authorities. Repeated writ petitions coming before this Court
reveal that claims under the scheme are being rejected mechanically
without conducting proper inquiry and without appreciating the welfare
nature and object of the scheme. Such recurring matters reflect a pattern
of hyper-technical application of the scheme by the authorities, thereby
defeating the very object of the scheme, which is intended to provide
immediate relief to families of deceased agriculturists, and reducing the
scheme itself to a mere procedural formality.
15. The principles of natural justice are firmly ingrained in administrative
law. It is well settled that even where a statute or scheme is silent
regarding grant of opportunity of hearing, the requirement of observing
audi alteram partem
must ordinarily be read into every State action which
entails civil consequences unless specifically excluded by law.
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss)

WRIC No. 17910 of 2026
5
, held that even administrative orders
Binapani Dei , AIR 1967 SC 1269
involving civil consequences must conform to the principles of natural
justice. In
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner , (1978)
1 SCC 405 , the Supreme Court observed that fair hearing is an essential
component of every decision-making process which visits a person with
adverse civil consequences.
17. The aforesaid principle has been consistently reaffirmed in
subsequent decisions. In Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy
Commissioner of Central Excise , (2015) 8 SCC 519 , the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that even in the absence of an express statutory
requirement, compliance with the principles of natural justice must
ordinarily be read into administrative actions having adverse
consequences. Similarly, in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sudhir Kumar
Singh , the Supreme Court, upon an exhaustive
, (2020) 10 SCC 492
survey of the earlier jurisprudence, formulated a structured approach to
the application of natural justice, including the “prejudice test”, and
reaffirmed that procedural fairness is an essential facet of State action. It
was further held that denial of an opportunity of hearing, where an
adverse conclusion is reached, would vitiate the action.
18. In the present case, rejection of the petitioner’s claim deprives the
petitioner and her family of financial assistance intended for dependents
of the deceased agriculturist and undoubtedly entails serious civil and
pecuniary consequences. Therefore, before rejecting the claim, the
District Magistrate ought to have issued notice to the petitioner, granted
opportunity to produce additional materials and thereafter conducted
proper inquiry regarding genuineness of the claim.
19. This Court further finds that the Government Order dated 28.02.2020
does not prescribe any specific time frame for consideration of claims
under the scheme. Consequently, applications are often kept pending for
months and, in several cases, for years together, thereby defeating the
very object of the scheme, which is to provide immediate financial
assistance to bereaved agriculturist families. Delayed disbursement under
such a welfare scheme frustrates its remedial purpose and renders the
assistance meaningless at the stage when the family is in greatest financial
distress. Claims under the scheme, therefore, require expeditious and
time-bound consideration consistent with the object sought to be achieved

WRIC No. 17910 of 2026
6
by the State Government.
20. This Court further finds it necessary to observe that the Government
Order dated 28.02.2020 does not prescribe any specific outer time limit
for consideration and disposal of claims under the scheme. As a
consequence thereof, applications are often kept pending for months and,
in several cases, even for years together. Such delays substantially defeat
the very purpose and object of the scheme, which has been framed to
provide immediate financial assistance and urgent economic relief to poor
agriculturist families who suddenly lose the sole earning member due to
accidental death. The welfare character of the scheme necessarily requires
expeditious consideration of claims. Delayed disbursement of
compensation in such cases frustrates the remedial intent of the policy and
renders the assistance illusory at the stage when the family is in greatest
financial distress. It is therefore necessary that claims under the scheme
be processed and decided within a reasonable and time-bound framework
consistent with the object sought to be achieved by the State Government.
21. In the facts of the present case, it has come on record that an FIR
regarding the accidental death of the petitioner’s husband was lodged.
The police prepared a site plan and after investigation submitted a
chargesheet. The injury report was also available on record. The FIR and
accompanying material also refer to contemporaneous evidence such as
CCTV footage of the accident, etc. Despite the existence of such
materials, the District Magistrate rejected the claim solely on the ground
that postmortem report and panchanama were not available. The
impugned order reflects complete non-application of mind and
mechanical exercise of power in disregard of the object of the scheme and
relevant material on record.
22. While considering such applications, the competent authority is
expected to keep in mind that the claimants are poor persons, not literate
and they also do not know the intricacies of law and, therefore, if there
was some shortcomings or infirmities in the applications filed by the
claimants, the authorities should have taken due care and should have
made every endeavor to inquire into the cause of death so that if the
dependents of the deceased family are entitled to compensation, the same
shall be provided to them in order to fulfill the spirit of the scheme. Minor
procedural deficiencies cannot become grounds to deny substantive

WRIC No. 17910 of 2026
7
benefits under a welfare scheme where the genuineness of the claim can
otherwise be verified through inquiry.
23. This Court further observes that several decisions of this Court have
consistently emphasized that authorities implementing welfare schemes
must remain conscious of the ground realities faced by beneficiaries and
cannot adopt a rigid or hyper-technical approach while dealing with
claims involving poor and distressed families. Though the scheme
prescribes a period of 180 days for submission of claims, this Court has
repeatedly held that such limitation under beneficial schemes cannot be
applied with such rigidity so as to defeat genuine claims, particularly
where delay is sufficiently explained from the attending circumstances of
the case. In the present case, the District Magistrate has not even
examined the circumstances leading to the delay of merely 14 days in
submission of the claim. Such mechanical exercise of power defeats the
very object of the scheme.
24. It is not disputed that the scheme requires the claimant to procure and
furnish several documents including death certificate, postmortem
report/inquest report, proof of agricultural status, land details, bank
documents and other records. Procurement of such documents inevitably
takes time, particularly where the claimant is a bereaved widow facing
financial hardship and administrative difficulties immediately after the
death of the sole earning member. Delay in such matters cannot be
viewed mechanically divorced from the surrounding circumstances of the
claimant.
25. Accordingly, the issues framed by this Court are answered in the
following terms and the following directions/guiding principles are issued
for implementation of the scheme in its true spirit and object:
(i) The competent authority shall not reject claims under the
scheme mechanically merely on account of absence of documents
such as postmortem report, panchanama or other records
contemplated under the Government Order dated 28.02.2020,
where other reliable contemporaneous material exists indicating
accidental death, entitlement under the scheme and genuineness
of the claim.
(ii) The procedural requirements contemplated under the
Government Order shall be treated as facilitative in nature and

WRIC No. 17910 of 2026
8
not as rigid technical conditions so as to defeat genuine claims
under the welfare scheme.
(iii) The competent authority shall duly consider
contemporaneous materials including FIR, site plan, injury
report, medical records, police papers, chargesheet, CCTV
footage and other relevant evidence while determining
genuineness of the claim.
(iv) Claims under the scheme shall not be rejected solely on the
ground of delay in submission of application, lodging of FIR or
production of documents, without examining the attending facts
and circumstances of the case, including the date of availability
of death certificate, prevailing family circumstances, practical
difficulties in procuring documents and other relevant
considerations.
(v) Where the competent authority entertains any doubt regarding
genuineness of the accident, eligibility of the claimant or
entitlement under the scheme and proceeds to conduct an inquiry,
the claimant shall necessarily be associated with such inquiry.
(vi) Prior notice of inquiry shall be furnished to the claimant
indicating the deficiencies noticed, the issues requiring
clarification and the materials proposed to be relied upon by the
authority.
(vii) If statements of any person are recorded during inquiry, the
identity of such persons shall be disclosed to the claimant and,
such statements shall be recorded after due notice to and in the
presence of the claimant.
(viii) Claims under the scheme shall not be rejected solely on
technical or procedural deficiencies without making reasonable
efforts to verify the genuineness of the claim through proper
inquiry.
(ix) Since the scheme is intended to provide immediate financial
assistance and urgent relief to bereaved agriculturist families, all
applications under the scheme shall ordinarily be decided
expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from
the date of submission of the application.

WRIC No. 17910 of 2026
9
26. The District Magistrates and all authorities implementing the scheme
shall follow the aforesaid principles in addition to the procedure
prescribed under the Government Order dated 28.02.2020 so as to ensure
effective implementation of the scheme in furtherance of its true object
and purpose.
27. Coming to the facts of the present case, this Court, upon perusal of
the material available on record, including the FIR, chargesheet and other
other contemporaneous evidence such as injury reports, is satisfied that
the death of the petitioner’s husband was accidental in nature and that the
claim of the petitioner is genuine and covered under the scheme.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the
District Magistrate, Prayagraj cannot be sustained in law and is
accordingly quashed. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
28. Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate a
copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh,
Lucknow so that appropriate circulars/instructions may be issued to all
District Magistrates for effective implementation of the scheme in its true
spirit and object.
(Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
May 8, 2026
Kuldeep
Digitally signed by :-
KULDEEP SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad