Facts
The petitioner’s mother died at the accident scene on 22 September 2023, and his father died during medical treatment on 27 September 2023.
Source reference: para. 2–5, 7The petitioner sought compensation under the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana for each parent.
Source reference: para. 2–5, 7The District Magistrate allowed the claim concerning the father and ₹5 lakhs was paid, but rejected the claim concerning the mother on the ground that a second claim was not admissible.
Source reference: para. 2–5, 7The petitioner challenged that rejection.
Source reference: para. 2–5, 7Issues
Whether Clause 7 of the Government Order dated 28 February 2020 bars a legal heir from receiving compensation for the deaths of two separately eligible individuals merely because ₹5 lakhs has already been paid in respect of one of them
Source reference: para. 11–12Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s claim concerning his mother was sustainable under the scheme
Source reference: para. 15–17Law Applied
The Court applied the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana, as set out in the Government Order dated 28 February 2020.
Source reference: para. 9–11, 14Clause 7(1) provides for adjustment where assistance is received under specified government schemes; Clause 7(2) provides for deduction of specified disaster-related compensation; and Clause 7(3) limits the amount payable under the scheme where benefits under Clauses 7(1) and 7(2) are combined.
Source reference: para. 9–11, 14The Court construed the scheme as beneficial and held that its provisions should receive full effect unless an express restriction applies; absent such a restriction, compensation is not limited to one parent or one eligible individual.
Source reference: para. 15Reasoning
The Court read Clause 7 as addressing the adjustment and ceiling of benefits received in respect of an individual under other schemes, not as imposing a one-claim limit across separate eligible individuals.
Source reference: para. 13–16The petitioner’s parents were separately recorded tenure-holders and were each eligible under the scheme.
Source reference: para. 13–16Since Clause 7 contained no express bar on separate claims for their respective deaths, payment of ₹5 lakhs for the father did not, by itself, disqualify the claim concerning the mother.
Source reference: para. 13–16Holding
The Court held that the rejection order dated 30 December 2023 was arbitrary and illegal, set it aside, and allowed the writ petition.
It directed the District Magistrate, Sitapur, to reconsider the petitioner’s claim afresh in light of the Court’s observations, preferably within four weeks after production of a certified copy of the order.
Source reference: para. 17Original Court PDF
Ramshankar ShuklavsState Of U.P. Thru. Commissioner And Secy. Board Of Revenue Lko. And 2 Others
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
