Sterilization-failure compensation claims cannot be rejected on technical grounds without facilitating prescribed formalities.

The petitioner underwent sterilization at the Community Health Centre, Jaura, District Morena, on 5 January 2022 and received a certificate and Green Card.

She later conceived and gave birth to a child, and sought compensation under the applicable sterilization-failure policy or guidelines.

In an earlier petition, the High Court directed the authorities to decide her representation by a reasoned order; the representation was subsequently rejected on 15 July 2026, reportedly because the claim was not legitimate and had been made beyond the stipulated period.

The petitioner then filed the present petition under Article 226, seeking compensation or, alternatively, directions concerning her claim.

Whether the petitioner’s compensation claim could be rejected on a technical ground without enabling completion of the prescribed formalities and considering her entitlement under the applicable policy.

Whether the impugned rejection should be set aside and the competent authority directed to process and decide the claim.

The Court considered its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the applicable compensation scheme, policy and guidelines for failure of sterilization.

It held that a claim should not be declined merely on a technical ground without requiring completion of prescribed formalities and examining entitlement under the governing policy; the competent authority must assess the claim fairly, objectively, lawfully and by a reasoned decision.

The petitioner’s sterilization and subsequent pregnancy and childbirth, together with her reliance on the relevant guidelines, warranted consideration of her claim by the competent authority.

Because the earlier direction required a reasoned decision and the claim had been rejected without the requisite consideration under the governing policy, the Court set aside the rejection.

It did not determine that compensation was payable; instead, it directed completion of the prescribed compensation form and verification of the relevant documents before a decision on entitlement.

The order dated 15 July 2026 rejecting the petitioner’s representation was set aside.

The competent authority was directed to ensure completion of the compensation form, verify the relevant medical and other documents, and decide the claim in accordance with the applicable policy, scheme and guidelines, preferably within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The decision was to be communicated to the petitioner forthwith.