Disposed

Smt. Rajmala v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2023WRIC/42418/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought compensation under the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana, filed 11 days late. The High Court fashioned a writ petition, directed the District Magistrate to condone the delay sympathetically and decide the claim within 45 days, with payment due within a further month. The court disposed of the writ petition with these specific directions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed directing District Magistrate to condone 11-day delay, decide claim within 45 days, and pay due amount within one month.

Smt. Rajmala Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:237957-DB

¶2

Court No. - 39

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42418 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Rajmala Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kant Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Krishna Kant Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.

¶7

Petitioner has sought the direction upon the District Magistrate, Hathras to release the compensation money due to her under the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana dated 24.02.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Scheme'). At the same time, it has been informed that the husband of the petitioner died on 04.06.2022. The application was first filed on 30.08.2022 i.e.

¶8

eleven days outside the period mentioned in Clause 11(छ) of the Scheme.

¶9

Perusal of Clause 10 of the Scheme reveals, it provides maximum period of 75 days to file an application / claim. For ready reference Clause 10 of the Scheme reads as below:-

¶10

" 10 - - आव े दन प्व ቔ ् ቚ स ् त त ु करन े ककव ी अवधध

¶11

ककषक ककी दतुररटननावश मकत्यतु अथवना ददव्यन ा गतना हहोनवे पर , ककषक / दवधधक वनाररस / वनाररसोሺ कहो आववेदन प्ቔ दनधना र रत ्ቚमनाण प्ቔोሺ / ्ቚप्ቔोሺ कहो पपूणर करनाकर दहो ्ቚदतयोሺ मम ( मपूल ्ቚदत एवाሱ छनायना्ቚ दत ) अधधकतम डवेढ़ मनाह (45 ददन ) ककी अवधध मम सम्बननधत तहससील कनायनारलय मम जमना करनना हहोगना। अपररहनायर पररनस्थदत मम आववेदन प्ቔ ्ቚस्त त ु करनवे ककी अवधध कहो 01 मनाह तक

¶12

बढ़नानवे कना अधधकनार धजलनाधधकनारसी मम दनदहत हहोगना। दकससी भसी दशना मम ढनाई मनाह (75 ददन ) कवे पश्चनात आववेदन प्ቔ पर दवचनार नहीሻ दकयना जनायवेगना। "

¶13

Clause 11(छ) is the clause dealing with the procedure to decide

¶14

the claim application. Clause 11(छ) of the Scheme reads as below:-

¶15

"11 - - आव े दन प्व ቔ क े व दनस ् तन ा रण कक ी ् ቚ दቅ ኌ यन ा

¶16

ककषक ककी दतुररटननावश मकत्यतु / ददव्यन ा गतना ककी नस्थदत मम आववेदन प्ቔ कवे दनस्तनारण ककी ्ቚदቅኌयना दनम्नवत हहोगसी :-

¶17

( छ ) - इस ्ቚकनार सनामनानय पररनस्थदतयोሺ मम धजलना ्ቚशनासन दनारना एक मनाह कवे अनदर ्ቚस्त त ु आववेदन प्ቔ कना दनस्तनारण / भतुगतनान दकयना जनायवेगना। अपररहनायर पररनस्थदतयोሺ मम अधधकतम 45 ददन कवे अनदर आववेदन प्ቔ कना दनस्तनारण / भतुगतनान सतुदननश्चत दकयना जनायवेगना। "

¶18

Thus, there is no doubt that the claim application was filed by the petitioner within 75 days of the occurrence. The delay of 11 days from the normal period of limitation (45 days) is condonable by the District Magistrate, Hathras.

¶19

In view of the above, since the claim application is still pending, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit, at this stage. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction, subject to the petitioner filing a copy of this order before the respondent no. 2, the said respondent may proceed to consider the short delay of 11 days, sympathetically and pass appropriate reasoned order on the claim application of the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of first compliance by the petitioner. Any amount found due and payable may be paid out within a further period of one month.

¶20

Order Date :- 15.12.2023 SK Srivastava

¶21

(Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.) . . . (S.D. Singh,J)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Rajmala v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rajmala v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Gopi Nath Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gopi Nath Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sadhna Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bashisht Narayan Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gayatri Devi and 46 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kavita Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others