Delay By Officials No Ground To Reject Farmer Welfare Claim; Indifference To Beneficiary's Plight Unsustainable: Allahabad High Court

While dealing with a case of financial assistance being sought by a deceased farmer's family in the schemes enacted by the State Government, the Allahabad High Court observed that making the widow of the farmer approach the Court multiple times to get such assistance under a welfare scheme due to inaction on part of the authorities cannot be sustained.

The bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad observed,

“Administrative action of this nature, marked by indifference to the plight of a beneficiary under a welfare scheme, cannot be sustained in a constitutional system committed to securing social justice.”

The “Mukhya Mantri Kishan Evam Sarvhit Beema Yojana” and “Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana” are welfare schemes by the State Government to provide assistance to the families of farmers in cases of death or permanent disability arising from contingencies specified under the Scheme.

Petitioner's husband was a farmer and was killed by a buffalo attack in 2016. Upon death of her husband, Petitioner approached the State authorities for financial assistance under the “Mukhya Mantri Kishan Evam Sarvhit Beema Yojana”. However, her claim was rejected on grounds of delay.

Challenging the rejection, petitioner pleaded that the Lekhpal had caused the undue delay and was not providing the documentation to the family. It was only in 2018 when the Lekhpal changed, the documents were handed over to the family. After passing through various officers, the claim was rejected in 2019 as time barred in the meeting of the Kisan Evam Sarvahit Bima Yojna Samiti.

After approaching the High Court, the petitioner filed a fresh representation which was rejected on grounds of delay of 20months.

The Court observed that petitioner had submitted the claim within time, but the then Lekhpal did not process and forward the documents on time and did not hand over the documents to his successor upon his transfer. It noted that departmental proceedings were initiated against the Lekhpal but he was eventually let off with a warning.

“Thus, while the concerned official suffered no serious consequence for his negligence, the petitioner has been deprived of the benefit of a welfare scheme which is intended to provide immediate financial assistance in times of distress. The petitioner, having suddenly lost the sole earning member of her family, has been left to struggle without the timely support which the Scheme is meant to provide.”

The Court noted that as per Government Order dated 10.07.2014, which sets out the guidelines for implementation of the Scheme and the procedure for disposal of claims under Clause 11, delay in filing necessary application was condonable upto 1 year from the incident.

It held that the impugned order of rejection of petitioner's claim was without proper application of mind to the material available on record. It was observed that failure on part of the Lekhpal in forwarding the documents was ignored by the State Authorities.

“It is necessary to bear in mind the object with which the “Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvahit Bima Yojna” has been framed. The Scheme has been introduced by the State Government as a social welfare measure to provide financial security to the families of farmers who suffer accidental death or permanent disability. The underlying purpose of the Scheme is to ensure that the dependents of the deceased farmer receive immediate financial assistance so that they are able to overcome the sudden economic distress caused by the loss of the sole earning member of the family. The Scheme, therefore, forms part of the State's welfare policy aimed at providing socio-economic protection to vulnerable sections of society, particularly the farming community.”

Noting the hardship caused to the petitioner due to the death of the sole breadwinner and thereafter the suffering due to inaction by the Lekhpal, the Court held

“To deny the petitioner the benefit of a welfare scheme in these circumstances would amount to a travesty of justice, particularly when the delay is clearly attributable to administrative lapses rather than any fault of the claimant. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the negligence or inaction of the authorities.”

The Court directed the District Magistrate, Ballia to reconsider the petitioner's claim on merits and in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.

Case Title: Lalsa Devi Versus State of U.P. and 4 others

Click Here To Read/Download Order