Allahabad High Court
Suneeta vs State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. ... on 9 June, 2021
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 10
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 6443 of 2021
Petitioner :- Suneeta
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lucknow & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Singh,Abhay Raj Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vaibhav Raj
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
The Court has convened through Video Conferencing.
Heard Shri Abhay Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 and Shri Vaibhav Raj Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being disposed of finally.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 15.06.2020 passed by the Committee presided by the District Magistrate wherein the case of the petitioner which was considered by the said Committee, at serial No.84, and her claim under "Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojana" has been rejected only on the ground that it is barred by limitation.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the aforesaid scheme a period of three months is provided as limitation for enabling a claimant to file a claim application. It is urged that in the instant case the husband of the petitioner died on 18.02.2019. On the very next day i.e. on 19.02.2019 the information was given to the police concerned and an First Information Report was lodged. A death certificate was also issued indicating the aforesaid date of death. However, the claimant-petitioner moved the application for claim for seeking a compensation in terms of "Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojana" which has been dismissed by means of the impugned order on the ground that the said application has been moved on 04.10.2019 which is beyond a period of three months from the date of death.
The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid issue regarding the limitation has been taken note of by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gautam Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & others reported in 2020 (11) ADJ 321 (Alld). It is further urged that this Court in the case of Gautam Yadav's has considered the entire scheme, the purpose as well as social beneficial outreach as well as the provision of Limitation Act and as held that the period of three months has provided in the scheme is not the appropriate which has been set aside and the court further provided that the limitation of three years from the date of death should be considered and taken to be the appropriate period of limitation. A direction was also issued that all such claims which are filed within a period of three years from the date of death would be considered to be within time and the same shall be decided on merits.
It is in this view of the matter that it is urged that the order passed by the committee presided by the District Magistrate is contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gautam Yadav (supra).
For the sake of convenience paragraphs 34, 36 and 37 of the case of Gautam Yadav (supra) is being reproduced hereinafter.
"34. We have no hesitation in holding that the limitation prescribed under the Scheme is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary and is liable to be struck out as it is well-settled that even while testing the validity of an administrative action, the same can be tested on the touch stone of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A ''socio-beneficial' Scheme has to be interpreted in a manner so as to advance the purpose for which the Scheme is formulated and not in a manner so as to defeat the entire purpose of the Scheme.
36. We further direct that in place of Limitation Prescribed under the Scheme, it should be read that the claims made within three years of the date of the death or within three years from the date of the rejection, either wholly or partly by the Insurance Company, to be a reasonable period for filing a claim under the 'Mukhyamantri Kisan Avam Sarvahit Bima Scheme' and the similar schemes which were in force prior thereto on behalf of beneficiaries of the Scheme.
37. As innumerable cases are filed seeking compensation under the schemes across the State, we direct that all the claims filed within a period of three years from the date of the death or within a period of three years from the date of rejection of claim, either partly or wholly by the Insurance Company, should be treated to be filed within limitation and should be processed on their merits."
The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 12.03.2021 and 16.03.2021 had required the learned counsel for the insurance company to ascertain the fact whether there has been any challenge to the decision of the Court in the case of Gautam Yadav (supra).
When the matter was heard the learned counsel for the insurance could not dispute the fact that there is no challenge nor there is any interim order by the Apex Court staying the aforesaid judgment. The learned counsel for the insurance company also could not dispute the fact that the law as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gautam Yadav (supra) before the Superior Court is still holding the field and is binding.
In such situation where apparently the claim has been filed by the petitioner within three years which is to be treated within time and is to be decided on merits. Consequently, the impugned order which has been passed rejecting the claims solely on the ground of limitation, cannot be sustained.
In light of the aforesaid pronouncement of this Court in the case of Gautam Yadav (supra), this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we allow the writ petition and set-aside the impugned order. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner to be within time and to decide the same on its own merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date authenticated copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned.
However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
(Jaspreet Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 9.6.2021
ank
