Allahabad High Court
Harish Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 12 July, 2023
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Prashant Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:138402-DB
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14395 of 2023
Petitioner :- Harish Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Krishna Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K.Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Petitioner is before this Court assailing the order impugned dated 25.3.2021 passed by the second respondent, whereby, claim of the petitioner for compensation under "Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna" has been rejected on the ground that he has failed to furnish the copy of the post mortem or inquest report of the deceased.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment and order passed in Saroja Devi Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others (Writ-C No. 16193 of 2017, dt. 18.04.2017), wherein, the Division Bench of this Court relying upon Lakshmi Devi Vs. Union of India and Ors. 2015 LawSuit (All) 829 has allowed the writ petition. As such it is sought to be contended that the present matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and the similar treatment may also be extended to the petitioner.
4. The above said argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is not being disputed by learned Standing Counsel.
5. We have proceeded to examine the record in question and find substance in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. For ready reference the operative portion of the order dated 18.4.2017 is quoted as under:-
"We have proceeded to examine the record in question and find that the State Government has issued Government order dated 10.7.2014 framing guidelines for implementation of the 'Krishak Durghatna Bhima Yojna' for agriculturists 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 of the insured. 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 and therefore, hyper technicalities should be ignored and equitable consideration should be kept in mind while deciding the matter 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 the people as guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
In Lakshmi Devi vs. Union of India and ors 2015 LawSuit (All) 829, a Division Bench of this Court had considered the Circular/Government order, which provides for payment of compensation to the family members of the deceased under National Calamities Emergency Fund. In the said case, on account of non-furnishing the postmortem report the claim of Lakshmi Devi (supra) was rejected. Finally the Division Bench of this Court had proceeded to consider the aim and object of the scheme in question and allowed the writ petition with following observations:-
"In the instant case, the stand of the opposite parties is contrary to the Government Order dated 24.1.2005. A perusal of the Government Order dated 24.1.2005 would indicate that there is no mandatory requirement for furnishing post-mortem report to get ex-gratia payment, which can be granted on the basis of inquiry conducted by the Revenue Authorities and the Area Lekhpal. It would be relevant to point out that the opposite parties have failed to establish that the Government Order dated 24.1.2005 has been rescinded/annulled or superseded by the State Government.
Furthermore, no material has been brought on record by the respondents to show that the cause of death of the petitioner's husband was not due to lightening but due to any other reason. Therefore, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind and considering all aspects of matter. Even otherwise, for grant of relief provisions should be interpreted very liberally to cover every victim of natural disaster.
For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 12.8.2011 is hereby quashed. Taking the holistic view of the matter, we direct the District Magistrate, Shrawasti, to pass fresh order for grant of ex-gratia payment in light of the aforesaid observation and the Government Order dated 24.1.2005 within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of finally in above terms."
In the present matter, this is admitted situation that the death has occurred on account of accident and admittedly the first information report was lodged regarding occurrence of accident. The relevant papers have also been brought on record to show that the treatment of late Surendra Prasad Patel was undertaken at Trauma Centre, B.H.U. Varanasi but due to serious injuries he could not survive and died on 7.12.2015. The death certificate has also been issued by the competent authority and as such, it is not disputed that on account of the accident the death has occurred and due to severe cold and fog the postmortem of petitioner's husband could not be ensured and on this very sole ground the rightful claim of the petitioner cannot be negated.
Consequently, we allow this writ petition and quash the impugned order dated 27.5.2016 passed by the District Level Committee in so far as it relates to petitioner's case at serial no.4 only and the respondents are directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner, taking into consideration the holistic view of the matter. "
6. In view of the above, following the same set of reasoning, we allow the present writ petition also in terms of Saroja Devi (supra). The order impugned dated 25.3.2021 is quashed and the matter is remanded back to second respondent to decide it afresh.
Order Date :- 12.7.2023
A.K.Srivastava
