Allowed

Smt. Mala Tripathi v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary and 3 Others

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2021WRIC/5095/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition regarding the rejection of a widow's death claim under a State Government scheme. Relying on a prior Division Bench judgment that struck down arbitrary limitation periods, the Court quashed the rejection order and directed the District Magistrate to reconsider the claim within three months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order quashed; District Magistrate directed to reconsider petitioner's claim within three months.

Smt. Mala Tripathi Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5095 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Mala Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Priyavrat Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶5

Petitioner's claim for compensation, consequent upon death of her husband, under the scheme of the State Government has been rejected on the ground of limitation. As per the scheme of the State Government such claim ought to be raised within 75 days from the date of the death, but in the present case the death of petitioner's husband occurred on 10.9.2018 and claim, in that regard, had been instituted on 13.11.2019 while it ought to be raised till 13.11.2018.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a widow and has no formal education and was otherwise not aware about the requirement of lodging claim within three months

¶7

Since facts are admitted and the adjudication ought not to be deferred as an illiterate widow would be denied her rights under a welfare scheme therefore the writ petition is taken up finally, at this stage itself.

¶8

Issue raised in this petition has already been adjudicated by this Court in Writ Petition No. 15983 of 2020 (Gautam Yadav Vs.State of U.P. and others). The Division Bench in Para Nos. 36 to 41 has observed as under:-

¶9

"36. 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.

¶10

37. Thus, we set aside the order dated Nil March, 2020 (Annexure-9), whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of limitation on both grounds as raised and discussed in this Judgment.

¶11

38.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.

¶12

39. 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.

¶13

40. As we have held that the limitation provided under the said Scheme is unreasonable and arbitrary and have substituted the said period by a period of three years, as recorded above, we direct the Registrar General of this Court to transmit a copy of this order to The Chief Secretary State of Uttar Pradesh and Director Institutional Finance,State of Uttar Pradesh ,for its communication to all the District Magistrates in the State and the District Magistrates in turn are directed to entertain and process the claims filed under the Scheme within limitation as prescribed above by this Court treating them to be within limitation and the same should be processed on their merits.

¶14

41. We have directed and provided for the limitation of three years, till the time the State Government takes an appropriate decision and amends limitation clauses of the Scheme to make them more reasonable taking into account the socio economic condition of the society as well the laws of India."

¶15

In view of what has already been observed by this Court, it would not be appropriate to allow the respondents to reject the petitioner's claim merely on account of about a year delay in instituting the claim. The object of providing assistance vide the welfare scheme would stand frustrated if a widow is denied relief for such triviality. The order impugned dated 14.1.2020 (Annexure- 3 to the writ petition) therefore stands quashed. The District Magistrate, concerned is directed to reconsider petitioner's claim in terms of the aforesaid observations and to take a final decision, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that all consequential action shall be taken without further loss of time.

¶16

Writ petition, accordingly, is allowed.

¶17

Order Date :- 29.11.2021

¶18

n.u.

Smt. Mala Tripathi v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mala Tripathi v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iktar Ul Hasan Zaidi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Smt. Parvinder Kaur Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Tibra Sainik Security Placement Services Vs U P Pollution Control Board and 2 Others

Christ University Institute of Management Delhi Ncr Vs State of U P and Others

Uttar Pradeshiya Safai Karamchari Sangh Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others