Rejecting Farmers' Welfare Claims Over Delay Without Considering Reasons Violates Natural Justice: Allahabad High Court

While dealing with a bunch of petitions were the claim under Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatana Kalyan Yojana was rejected on grounds that it was filed after 75 days of the incident, the bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan held,

“we find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that assuming that the outer limit for filing the complaint is 75 days as per the scheme (though the same is still under consideration before the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd.) but even in an absence of specific clause, for considering the claim of the petitioner beyond the period of limitation, subject to an explanation for the condonation of delay, non consideration to the explanation, shall be violative of Principles of Natural Justice.”

It further held,

“It is also not res integra that even if the scheme does not provide for adherence to the Principles of Natural Justice, it is an inherent right of every claimant, that he may be given an opportunity to explain the delay and which shall be incumbent upon the authorities to consider the same, within a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner.”

Clause 10 of the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatana Kalyan Yojana provides for 45-day period for registering claim. It also provides that period can be extended for one month more but not more than 75 days in totality.

The Court noted that its coordinate bench in Gautam Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others had held that the 75 day period was unreasonable and extended it to 3 years. However, the Supreme Court in National Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs. Gautam Yadav and others stayed the direction of the High Court regarding extension of period of claims to 3 years.

In 2 other decisions of the Allahabad High Court, the Court considered whether there was sufficient cause shown on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case.

The Court observed that Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatana Kalyan Yojana is a beneficial scheme to help the families tide over the hardship from the untimely loss of their breadwinner. It operates on the basic principle which is to benefit the farmers who are illiterate.

It held that in such situation, deny consideration of relief on hyper-technical grounds of delay without taking into consideration the explanation, is unjust, especially when the delay could have been caused by an administrative action of the State.

“An administrative action is just or not, would depend largely on the nature of a Scheme. An action or restrictions, which may be justifiable, towards the object and purpose of a particular Scheme, may not be justifiable in context of another Scheme for eg. a limitation of 5 yrs, in case of a Government Servant's death and provision for compassionate appointment, may be justified in balancing the public interest; but fixing an outer limit of 75 days only, that too in case of death of a farmers, whose family is illiterate and possibly at times, may not be aware towards their rights, may be unreasonable; and chances of deprivation of the benefit of the Scheme, is much higher.”

The Court held that since various documents are required to be submitted for claiming the benefits, the time spent in obtaining all necessary documents is a reasonable explanation for delay in filing application.

Since no remedy is available under the scheme in case of rejection, the Court held that powers could be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the claimant cannot be left remedy-less.

“One can understand when the time line is critical for working of the Scheme, when it can be said that it mandates diligence by the claimant; but when the very nature of the Scheme is to provide economical assistance to weaker section of the society, who most often are illiterate or wary of their rights, then it is part of their fundamental right, to be given an opportunity to explain the delay and seek its condonation. To that extent, the said opportunity, can be read in by necessary implications.”

It held that lack of provision for consideration of delay condonation cannot be implied to be intentional as it is beneficial scheme to provide financial assistance and not deprive the claimants on technical grounds.

“In the said circumstances, it will be a violation of principles of natural justice, in case the claim is not even considered on account of the fact that though the delay was on the part of the State machinery but the period of 75 days is over, as per the Scheme.”

Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioners to file additional affidavits before the Authority explaining the delay from the date of expiry of limitation till the date of filing of claim application and a reasoned order be passed after giving them opportunity of hearing.

Case Title: Mala Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 others