Disposed

Santosh Rani v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC4 Nov 2019WRIC/34258/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the District Magistrate to re-examine the petitioner's claim for insurance benefits under a farmer's death scheme, ignoring a previous order that denied benefits due to unspecified cause of death in medical reports.

What did the court decide?

Directing the District Magistrate to examine the matter afresh within two months and issue an appropriate decision, ignoring the previous denial order.

Santosh Rani Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34258 of 2019

¶4

Petitioner :- Santosh Rani Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Naveen Bajpai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

¶7

By means of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

¶8

" (i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1 to 4 to pay the amount of Insurance of Rs.5 lakhs to the petitioner payable under the scheme "Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojana UP" as the petitioner's husband (Heeralal) who was a poor farmer died an unnatural death accidentally due to severe chilling and biting cold whether while he was watering his Agricultural field in the on 9.1.2018.

¶9

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 5 and 6 to again provide the Post Mortem Report and Viscera Report of the petitioner's deceased husband (Hiralal) clearly mentioning/stating the cause of his death in the reports respectively as in the absence of which the petitioner would not be able to succeed in her claims to be granted under the scheme" Mukhyamantri Kisan evam Sarvhit Bima Yojana U.P." despite fulfilling all he requisite conditions. "

¶10

Petitioner has challenged letter dated 10.12.2018 sent by Additional District Magistrate (F.&R.), Hamirpur through District Magistrate, Hamirpur addressing Commissioner, Chitrakut Dham Division, Banda, communicating him that since in Post Mortem Report and Viscera Report, cause of death of petitioner's husband is not specific, therefore, no benefit under Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojana, U.P. is admissible to petitioner.

¶11

¶12

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has filed personal affidavit of Gyaneshwar Pratap, District Magistrate, Hamirpur, bringing on record therewith details of persons to whom benefit of aforesaid scheme has been given and also copy of scheme.

¶13

It is not disputed that term 'Accident' has been defined in the scheme itself and it is not confined to mere accidental claims. The scheme is beneficiary and a part of social welfare. It has to be widely publicized since it is a social welfare scheme for the poor farmers to get over from tragic condition which takes place due to untimely death of family's bread winner. In the present case, it is not disputed that death was due to severe cold which will entitle petitioner to get benefit of aforesaid scheme. Only reason for denying benefit of said scheme to petitioner is that cause of death is not bona fide as it could not be explained as to how post mortem report disclosed cause of death was due to severe cold. According to respondents, no reason has been shown in the post mortem report which could have entitled petitioner of claim. None of the conditions, which are described so as to deny benefit under said scheme, i.e., suicide, drink, consumption of liquor and involvement in criminal activities, are attracted in the case at hand.

¶14

Thus, looking to the objective of scheme, it was incumbent upon respondent concerned to verify cause of death of petitioner's husband , which would entitle petitioner for the benefit or otherwise. In our view, petitioner is entitled to benefit. In fact respondents have also not found petitioner disentitled for the same but they have denied it only on the ground that cause of death is not proved by post mortem report. In over view, relevant material has not been examined and concerned authority has looked into the matter in a totally mistaken manner, which is not the intention and purpose of scheme. Matter of the petitioner has not been examined properly.

¶15

Since no final order has been passed, we dispose of this petition

¶16

¶17

directing District Magistrate concerned, who is also present in Court, to examine the matter afresh in the light of aforesaid scheme/our observation and take appropriate decision expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶18

We make it clear that while considering the matter afresh as directed above, letter dated 10th December 2018 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) shall be ignored and be not taken into consideration for any purpose whatsoever.

¶19

Order Date :- 4.11.2019 Ram Murti

Santosh Rani v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Rani v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Neetu Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Rakesh Prakash Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Suri Brother Extension and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Secry. Avas and Others

Nafeesa Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mohammad Khalid Khan Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Faana Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others