# Lalsa Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 834
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-12
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 12356 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar, Mrs. Garima Prashad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lalsa-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54808
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

834 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
number in High Court"s order was immaterial, as the petitioner is required to apply for permission
to travel abroad in respect of all pending cases.

24. The learned Magistrate shall pass an appropriate order after due consideration of the
principles laid down herein, ensuring that the right to travel is not curtailed mechanically or
arbitrarily, but is balanced in a fair, reasoned, and legally compliant manner with the necessity of
securing attendance at trial. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 834
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. GARIMA PRASHAD, J.

Writ C No. 12356 of 2022

Lalsa Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Matter pertains to whether claim of the petitioner under the "Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam
Sarvahit Bima Yojna" arising out of death of petitioner's husband on 06.09.2016 was liable to be
rejected on the ground that claim processed on 27.01.2018 was delayed by more than 20
months beyond the prescribed period under the Scheme; and whether respondent authorities
were justified in rejecting the claim on limitation.
HEADNOTE
Constitution of India - Art.226 - "Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvahit Bima Yojna" - Welfare
scheme framed to provide immediate financial assistance to families of farmers in cases of
accidental death or permanent disability - Petitioner's husband, a marginal farmer, died on
06.09.2016 after being attacked by a buffalo - Petitioner submitted all claim documents before
the concerned Lekhpal well before April, 2017 but said official failed to forward the same to the
competent authority - After transfer of said Lekhpal, petitioner again handed over documents to
newly posted Lekhpal on 27.01.2018 - District Magistrate treated 27.01.2018 as the date of
filing of claim application and rejected claim by order dated 16.12.2021 holding that claim had
been filed after delay of more than 20 months beyond the prescribed period - Challenge in writ
jurisdiction - Justification:
Held: Object of the Scheme, 'Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvahit Bima Yojna', is to provide immediate
financial assistance to family of farmer who suffers accidental death or permanent disability so that family may
overcome sudden economic distress caused by loss of sole earning member - Scheme forms part of State's
welfare policy aimed at providing socio-economic protection to vulnerable sections of society, particularly
farming community - Beneficial or welfare statutes should be given liberal interpretation and not narrow and
technical interpretation - Administrative action in such matters must adopt proactive and pragmatic approach
3 All. Lalsa Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
835
aimed at achieving socio-economic objectives rather than frustrating purpose of scheme by adopting rigid
procedural technicalities - Hyper-technical interpretation of procedural requirements, particularly where delay
is attributable to administrative lapses of authorities themselves, would frustrate very purpose for which such
schemes are framed.

Court held that to deny the petitioner benefit of a welfare scheme would amount to a travesty of justice,
particularly when delay was clearly attributable to administrative lapses rather than any fault of the claimant -
Petitioner cannot be made to suffer for negligence or inaction of the authorities - Authorities had failed to
consider their own record, which clearly showed that petitioner had submitted the documents prior to April,
2017 within the prescribed period of limitation - Show cause notice dated 08.03.2018 had been issued to the
then Lekhpal for gross negligence in not forwarding the claim despite having received complete documents -
Impugned order was silent on those material aspects and rejected the claim solely on the ground of delay,
which was not attributable to the petitioner - Conduct on the part of the authorities, who allowed the matter
to linger for years, renders their reliance on the ground of delay wholly untenable - Court held that claim of
the petitioner was within the permissible period and impugned order rejecting the claim on the ground of
limitation was unsustainable - Impugned order quashed - Matter remanded to the District Magistrate to
reconsider petitioner's claim afresh on merits in accordance with law.[Paras 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,
26, 27, 28, 29] (E-5)
CASE LAW CITED
Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527;
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51

List of Acts
Constitution of India
List of Keywords
Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvahit Bima Yojna; Welfare scheme; Financial assistance; Marginal farmer;
Accidental death; Delay in submission of claim; Limitation; Liberal interpretation; Beneficial legislation;
Administrative lapses; Hyper-technical approach; Socio-economic protection; Mechanical order; Welfare policy;
Social justice;
CASE ARISING FROM
From the order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Ballia rejecting petitioner's claim under
"Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvahit Bima Yojna" on the ground of limitation.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner: Om Prakash Chaurasia, Rajendra Pratap Singh, Yakub Ansari.
Advs. for the Respondents: C.S.C.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs.Garima Prashad, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradeepta
Kumar Shahi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
836 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking the following relief:-

"A. to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
order dated 16/12/2021 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure-14 to this writ petition).

B. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent
no.2 to pay the claim of the petitioner under Mukhya Mantri Kishan Evam Sarvhit Beema
Yojana on the death of the husband of the petitioner."

3. The State Government formulated a welfare scheme titled "Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam
Sarvahit Bima Yojna" to provide financial assistance to the families of farmers in cases of death or
permanent disability arising from contingencies specified under the Scheme. The Scheme has been
in force for several years and has been revised from time to time through Government Orders,
including those dated 10.07.2014, 20.06.2017 and 04.03.2020, which introduced amendments to its
implementation and procedural framework.

4. The object of the Scheme is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a
farmer who suffers accidental death or permanent disability so that the family may overcome the
sudden economic distress caused by the loss of the earning member.

5. In the present case, the claim filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned
order dated 16.12.2021 solely on the ground that the claim had been filed beyond the period of
limitation. The core controversy which arises for consideration is whether the claim of the
petitioner under the Scheme was filed within the permissible period and whether the respondents
were justified in rejecting the claim on the ground of limitation.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners husband, Ram Pravesh
Yadav, a marginal farmer, had died on 06.09.2016 after being attacked by a buffalo. On the same
day, the Panchayatnama was conducted and the postmortem was performed on 07.09.2016. The
death certificate was issued by the Village Development Officer on 03.12.2016.

7. Learned counsel further submitted that, after completing the necessary formalities, the
petitioner had submitted her claim under the Scheme before the concerned Lekhpal, Mahendra
Ram, well within the prescribed period of four months. However, the said Lekhpal failed to
forward the claim to the competent authorities.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that the said Lekhpal was transferred in April 2017
but failed to hand over the petitioners claim documents to the newly posted Lekhpal. The
petitioner came to know of this only later and, after making considerable efforts to retrieve the
documents from the earlier Lekhpal, eventually handed them over to the newly posted Lekhpal on
27.01.2018.

9. Thereafter, the concerned Lekhpal submitted his report before the Revenue Inspector
and the Tahsildar, who forwarded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 14.03.2018. The
claim was thereafter sent to the Chief Revenue Officer on 15.03.2018 and was thereafter rejected in
3 All. Lalsa Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
837
the meeting of the Kisan Evam Sarvahit Bima Yojna Samiti held on 22.04.2019 on the ground that
it was barred by limitation.

10. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ-C No.
26566 of 2020. The said writ petition was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a
comprehensive representation and directing the authorities to decide the same within three weeks.
Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a fresh representation on 08.02.2021.

11. Despite the order of this Court, the claim remained undecided, compelling the
petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings. By order dated 09.11.2021, this Court granted a further
opportunity to the authorities to decide the claim within six weeks. In compliance thereof, the
competent authority passed the impugned order dated 16.12.2021 rejecting the claim on the ground
that it had been filed with a delay of more than 20 months, which was beyond the period prescribed
under the Scheme and therefore not liable to be condoned.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent authorities had failed
to consider their own record, which clearly showed that the petitioner had submitted the documents
prior to April 2017 within the prescribed period of limitation. It was further pointed out that a show
cause notice dated 08.03.2018 had been issued to the then Lekhpal, Mahendra Ram, for gross
negligence in not forwarding the claim despite having received complete documents. The
impugned order, however, remains silent on these material aspects and rejects the claim solely on
the ground of delay, which was not attributable to the petitioner.

13. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submitted that although the date of the
petitioners earlier application was not available on record, it was admitted that the petitioner had
submitted certain documents to the earlier Lekhpal who had failed to process them. However, since
the claim ultimately came to be processed only after 27.01.2018, i.e., more than 20 months after the
death of the farmer on 06.09.2016, the competent authority was justified in treating the claim as
beyond the prescribed period of limitation under the Scheme and rejecting the same accordingly.

14. This Court has considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the original record produced before it.

15. The original record clearly reveals that the petitioner had submitted the claim
documents to the then Lekhpal, Mahendra Ram, well before April 2017. The delay in processing
the claim occurred because the said official neither forwarded the claim to the competent
authorities nor handed over the documents to his successor upon his transfer.

16. A further perusal of the record shows that a joint report dated 20.07.2021 was
submitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Tehsildar to the District Magistrate. In the said
report, it was recorded that an inquiry had been conducted and it was found that the then Lekhpal,
Mahendra Ram, had failed to submit the petitioners claim despite having received the necessary
documents, for which a show cause notice dated 08.03.2018 had been issued to him. The report
further records that the said Lekhpal did not submit any reply to the show cause notice, and
consequently a recommendation was made for initiation of departmental proceedings against him.
838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
17. Acting upon the said report, the District Magistrate directed the Chief Revenue Officer
to take necessary action. Thereafter, by order dated 09.08.2021, departmental proceedings were
initiated against the said Lekhpal and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was appointed as the Inquiry
Officer.

18. However, it is also borne out from the record that the said officer was ultimately let off
with only a warning and continues to receive all pensionary benefits. 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.

19. A perusal of the 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, reads as
under:-

 "11- Procedure for disposal and execution of claims:-

 In case of physical disability or death of the tenure-holder farmers, the procedure for
disposal of claims shall be as follows:- (1) For the successful and smooth implementation of the
Farmers Accidental Insurance Scheme, an online software (web portal) is required, through which
in case of unnatural death or physical disability, the farmer/policy holder or dependent can submit
the online form and thereafter, submit the necessary documents related to the insurance scheme in
the tehsil and get the receipt for the same. These documents should be sent to the concerned
insurance company from the office of the Sub-District Magistrate. The farmer/policy holder or
dependent shall submit the insurance claim on the web portal after completing all the prescribed
forms within a maximum period of four months.

 The farmer/policy holder or dependent shall have to submit the following evidence on the
web portal while completing the claim form:-

 A - Claim Form.

 B - Certified copy of Khatauni.

 C - Age proof (in order of priority):

 (a) High School Certificate.

 (b) Family Register.

 (c) Ration Card.

 (d) Voter ID Card/Voter List.
3 All. Lalsa Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
839
 (e) Any other age proof.

 D - Postmortem Report or Panchnama

 E - Copy of FIR/GD / Police Panchnama /Certificate issued by SDM.

 F - Death Certificate.

 G - Succession Certificate (only in case of disputed succession)

 If the insurance claim is submitted with a delay of more than 04 months but within one
year, then the District Magistrate will have the right to condone the delay. On receiving the
insurance forms, the concerned Sub-District Magistrate will prepare the insurance forms and send
them to the insurance company within a maximum of 3 weeks after completing other formalities.
While sending the insurance forms to the insurance company by the insured/dependent, the bank
name, account number and IFSC code of the person receiving the money should also be made
available to the insurance company and the insurance company will send the cheque of the amount
electronically directly to this account to the concerned District Magistrate who will ensure to make
it available to the concerned tenure holder farmer or his legal heir in case of death within 15
days."

20. As per the provisions of the aforesaid Scheme applicable at the relevant time, the claim
along with complete documents was required to be submitted within four months from the date of
the incident. However, if the claim was submitted after four months but within a period of one year,
the District Magistrate of the concerned district was empowered to condone the delay depending
upon the circumstances of the case.

21. A perusal of the impugned order dated 16.12.2021 clearly reflects a lack of proper
application of mind. The order proceeds on the premise that no application had been filed by the
claimant. It further records that it was only on 15.01.2018 that a passbook was prepared under the
Scheme, from which the authority inferred that no steps had been taken by the petitioner to claim
the benefit prior to that date. However, the order is conspicuously silent on the material facts borne
out from the record, namely the submission of the earlier application by the petitioner, the failure of
the then Lekhpal to process or forward the claim, and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against
him for such lapse. These facts were material for determining the issue of limitation and required
objective consideration. The impugned order thus appears to have been passed in a mechanical
and cursory manner, without proper examination of the record, treating the claimant as an
adversary rather than as a beneficiary under a welfare scheme.

22. 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
840 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
family. The Scheme, therefore, forms part of the States welfare policy aimed at providing socioeconomic protection to vulnerable sections of society, particularly the farming community.

23. While deciding the issue of compensation, in Union of India Vs Prabhakaran Vijaya
Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, Supreme Court observed that:

 "11. ... Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of
legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow
and technical one. Hence, in our opinion the latter of the abovementioned two interpretations i.e.
the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred...

 12. ... In other words, beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not
literal or strict interpretation"

24. The above principle applies with greater force when administrative authorities
implement subordinate or delegated legislation, such as Government schemes framed through
executive orders. Administrative action in such matters must therefore adopt a proactive and
pragmatic approach aimed at achieving socio-economic objectives, rather than frustrating the
purpose of the scheme by adopting rigid procedural technicalities. A hyper-technical interpretation
of procedural requirements, particularly where the delay is attributable to administrative lapses of
the authorities themselves, would frustrate the very purpose for which such schemes are framed.

25. The Supreme Court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation 1985 SCR Supl.
(2) 51 emphasized that State action must be humane and responsive to the realities faced by
vulnerable sections of society. Administrative authorities implementing welfare measures are
expected to act with fairness, responsibility and sensitivity towards citizens in distress. Subordinate
or delegated legislation, especially those framed for socio-economic welfare and upliftment, must
be administered with care and in a manner that advances the purpose for which they have been
enacted.

26. In the present case, the respondent authority had the entire record before it, including
the material reflecting the lapse on the part of its own official. In such circumstances, the authority
ought to have adopted a humane and pragmatic approach by acknowledging the fault of its officer
and ensuring that the petitioner, a widow who had lost the sole breadwinner of her family, received
the financial assistance contemplated under the Scheme. Instead, the petitioner was compelled to
pursue her claim before multiple authorities and even to approach this Court repeatedly. The record
reveals that the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court twice and even initiate contempt
proceedings merely to secure a decision on her claim. 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.

27. It is indeed striking that while the respondent authorities seek to penalize the petitioner
for an alleged delay in submission of the claim, the same authorities themselves took years to
decide the matter. Such conduct on the part of the authorities, who allowed the matter to linger for
years, renders their reliance on the ground of delay wholly untenable. To deny the petitioner the
3 All. Ajay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
841
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.

28. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court holds that the claim of the
petitioner was within the permissible period and the impugned order rejecting the claim on the
ground of limitation is unsustainable.

29. The impugned order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2, District
Magistrate, Ballia, rejecting the petitioners claim under the "Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna
Kalyan Yojana" is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the District Magistrate, Ballia, to
reconsider the petitioners claim afresh on merits in accordance with law and in the light of the
observations made hereinabove. The said exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably
within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

30. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 841
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. GARIMA PRASHAD, J.

Writ C No. 41066 of 2023

Ajay Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Matter pertains to whether respondent authorities were justified in rejecting the claim of the
petitioner for ex gratia compensation on account of death of his wife allegedly due to Covid-19
while performing election duty, on the ground that no material was produced to establish Covid19 infection or death due to Covid-19 within the meaning of Government Order dated
01.06.2021.
HEADNOTE
Constitution of India - Art.226 - Ex gratia compensation - Government Order dated 01.06.2021
- Petitioner's wife, working as Assistant Teacher in a basic school, was allotted election duty on
07.04.2021 - Petitioner alleged that while going for election duty she suffered Covid-19
infection and ultimately died on 27.04.2021 after being admitted to hospital - Claim for ex gratia