Disposed

Smt. Gyanpati v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2025WRIC/2093/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A widow's claim for accidental death benefits under a State scheme for farmers was rejected for an eight-month delay in filing. The Division Bench held delay alone cannot defeat such claims and directed the District Magistrate to reconsider afresh within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to District Magistrate, Basti, to accord fresh consideration to the petitioner's claim and pass a reasoned order within three months.

Smt. Gyanpati vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:18563-DB

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2093 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Gyanpati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

¶6

Petitioner's claim for payment on account of accidental death under the Mukyamantri Krishak Durghtna Kalyan Yojana has been rejected by the District Magistrate on account of alleged delay of eight months in submitting the claim. This order of the SubDivisional Magistrate, Basti, is challenged on the ground that filing of an application ought not to have been rejected on the ground of delay. It is also submitted that the scheme is a beneficiary scheme formulated by the State for the benefit of poor farmers and delay in such matters ought not to be the ground for rejection of claim, if the petitioner's claim is otherwise covered under the scheme.

¶7

Reliance has been placed on a judgment of the co-ordinate bench in Writ C- No.15983 of 2020 (Gautam Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) wherein the Division Bench has held that limitation in such claims would be three years by virtue of Clause 137 of the schedule to the Limitation Act. Reliance has also been placed on judgment of this Court in Writ- C No.21991 of 2023 (Sambhawati Devi Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) and in the case of (Shailesh Kumar and Another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) in Writ- C No.24891 of 2022.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the competent authority i.e., respondent no.2 shall take an appropriate decision in the matter.

¶9

In view of the authoritative pronouncement of law by various division benches, referred to above, delay in mere making of claim by the widow for benefit under the scheme cannot be rejected routinely on the ground of delay. The order passed by the SubDivisional Magistrate, in such circumstances, cannot be sustained.

¶10

We dispose of this writ petition, with a direction to the District Magistrate, Basti, to accord fresh consideration to the petitioner's claim in light of the law laid down by this Court in the above judgments by passing a reasoned order within a period of three months.

¶11

Order Date :- 7.2.2025 LN Tripathi

¶12

Digitally signed by :- LALIT TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Gyanpati v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gyanpati v. State of U.P. 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

Prem Chandra Kushwaha vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Aniket Chauhan vs Union of India and Another

Vedistya Private Limited vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shitu vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Varsha Sahani vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Murlidhar @ Murlighar vs State of U.P. and 8 Others