# Savita Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 728
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-14
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 13994 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Praveen Kumar Giri
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/savita-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52716
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Whether the impugned order dated 29.03.2023,
rejecting the petitioner's claim for ex gratia
compensation under the Mukhya Mantri Krishak
Durghatana Kalyan Yojana, had been passed
"without
assigning
proper
reasons",
and
whether the deceased qualified as a "Krishak"
under Clause (2) of the Government Order
dated 28.02.2020.

Headnotes
Service Law / Welfare Scheme - Mukhya
Mantri Krishak Durghatana Kalyan Yojana
- Definition of 'Krishak' - Under Cl. 2(2) of
Government Order dated 28.02.2020, a
breadwinner family member of a recorded
tenure-holder is covered if "main source of
livelihood is agricultural income" from
land recorded in the father's name -
Eligibility
-
Deceased
engaged
in
temporary non-agricultural work - Mere
engagement as khalasi/co-driver at the
time of accident does not exclude the
deceased from being treated as a farmer -
It is very common to find persons doing
odd jobs during off-season of farming -
That by itself would not disentitle him
from
the
benefit
of
the
Scheme
-
Administrative Law - Non-consideration
of material & prior High Court directions -
Direction to Reconsider.

Held: The impugned order has not considered
all aspects of the case and rejected the
application without assigning proper reasons - It
failed to consider the earlier order dated
02.03.2023 - Engagement as khalasi at the time
of accident would not by itself mean that he
was not engaged as a farmer - Persons often do
odd
jobs
during
off-season;
this
cannot
disentitle them from benefits of the Scheme -
Petitioner
to
file
fresh
comprehensive
representation with full documents declaring
deceased as farmer - District Magistrate to
obtain fresh report keeping in mind Cl. 2(2)
(breadwinner clause) and determine whether
10 All. Savita Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
729
the
deceased's
source
of
livelihood
was
agricultural - Provide due hearing and pass
reasoned order - Impugned order dated
29.03.2023
is
quashed
and
set
aside;
reconsideration to be completed preferably
within eight weeks - Writ Petition Allowed.
(Paras 6,7,8,9,10) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
No external case law cited in the judgment.
(Only prior order of the High Court dated
02.03.2023 is reproduced).

List of Acts / Scheme / Government
Orders
Mukhya Mantri Krishak Durghatana Kalyan
Yojana - Government Order dated 28.02.2020
(effective from 14.09.2019); Definitions and
eligibility under Clause (2).

List of Keywords
Breadwinner;
Krishak;
Khalasi;
co-driver;
agricultural income; representation; impugned
order; electrocution; fresh report; reasoned and
speaking order; ex gratia payment; District
Magistrate; Scheme.

Case Arising From
Impugned order dated 29.03.2023 passed by
District
Magistrate/Collector,
Azamgarh,
rejecting petitioner's claim under the Scheme.

Appearances for Parties
Advs.
for
the
Petitioner:
Ajay Kumar Maurya, Deepak Singh, Gaurav
Tiwari, Kunwar Rajan
Advs.
for
the
Respondents:
Standing Counsel (C.S.C.) / Sri Birendra Prasad
Shukla

## Text

728 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
important. That interpretation is best which
makes the textual interpretation match the
context. A statute is best interpreted when
we know why it was enacted."

43. We find that in the instant matter,
the authority had already passed the
separate award qua First Schedule and
towards the rehabilitation and resettlement
they have treated the petitioners, their
mother and step-father as one unit.
Accordingly, the compensation had been
paid to the petitioners being as minors at
the time of declaration of the awards on
30.07.2016 and 26.12.2016. So far as the
rehabilitation and resettlement award under
the Second Schedule is concerned, we find
that the entire claim has been set up
precisely on the ground that after the
demise of their father, the mother remarried and the grand-father had nurtured
the minors. Therefore, they are to be treated
as separate unit. In the light of the above
discussion, the said argument is totally
devoid of merit and accordingly, the same
stands rejected.

44. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 728
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Writ C No. 13994 of 2023

Savita Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ajay Kumar Maurya, Deepak Singh, Gaurav
Tiwari, Kunwar Rajan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 29.03.2023,
rejecting the petitioner's claim for ex gratia
compensation under the Mukhya Mantri Krishak
Durghatana Kalyan Yojana, had been passed
"without
assigning
proper
reasons",
and
whether the deceased qualified as a "Krishak"
under Clause (2) of the Government Order
dated 28.02.2020.

Headnotes
Service Law / Welfare Scheme - Mukhya
Mantri Krishak Durghatana Kalyan Yojana
- Definition of 'Krishak' - Under Cl. 2(2) of
Government Order dated 28.02.2020, a
breadwinner family member of a recorded
tenure-holder is covered if "main source of
livelihood is agricultural income" from
land recorded in the father's name -
Eligibility
-
Deceased
engaged
in
temporary non-agricultural work - Mere
engagement as khalasi/co-driver at the
time of accident does not exclude the
deceased from being treated as a farmer -
It is very common to find persons doing
odd jobs during off-season of farming -
That by itself would not disentitle him
from
the
benefit
of
the
Scheme
-
Administrative Law - Non-consideration
of material & prior High Court directions -
Direction to Reconsider.

Held: The impugned order has not considered
all aspects of the case and rejected the
application without assigning proper reasons - It
failed to consider the earlier order dated
02.03.2023 - Engagement as khalasi at the time
of accident would not by itself mean that he
was not engaged as a farmer - Persons often do
odd
jobs
during
off-season;
this
cannot
disentitle them from benefits of the Scheme -
Petitioner
to
file
fresh
comprehensive
representation with full documents declaring
deceased as farmer - District Magistrate to
obtain fresh report keeping in mind Cl. 2(2)
(breadwinner clause) and determine whether
10 All. Savita Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
729
the
deceased's
source
of
livelihood
was
agricultural - Provide due hearing and pass
reasoned order - Impugned order dated
29.03.2023
is
quashed
and
set
aside;
reconsideration to be completed preferably
within eight weeks - Writ Petition Allowed.
(Paras 6,7,8,9,10) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
No external case law cited in the judgment.
(Only prior order of the High Court dated
02.03.2023 is reproduced).

List of Acts / Scheme / Government
Orders
Mukhya Mantri Krishak Durghatana Kalyan
Yojana - Government Order dated 28.02.2020
(effective from 14.09.2019); Definitions and
eligibility under Clause (2).

List of Keywords
Breadwinner;
Krishak;
Khalasi;
co-driver;
agricultural income; representation; impugned
order; electrocution; fresh report; reasoned and
speaking order; ex gratia payment; District
Magistrate; Scheme.

Case Arising From
Impugned order dated 29.03.2023 passed by
District
Magistrate/Collector,
Azamgarh,
rejecting petitioner's claim under the Scheme.

Appearances for Parties
Advs.
for
the
Petitioner:
Ajay Kumar Maurya, Deepak Singh, Gaurav
Tiwari, Kunwar Rajan
Advs.
for
the
Respondents:
Standing Counsel (C.S.C.) / Sri Birendra Prasad
Shukla

(Delivered by Hon'ble Praveen Kumar
Giri, J.)

 Heard Sri Gaurav Tiwari, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and Sri Birendra Prasad Shukla,
learned Standing Counsel appearing on
behalf of the State respondents.

2. By means of the present petition,
petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

"1- issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing
the
impugned
order
dated
29.03.2023 passed by Respondent No. 2
(Annexure No. 9) to the writ petition.

2- issue any other writ order or
direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case."

Brief Facts

3. The petitioner is the wife of the
deceased
Sanjay
Yadav,
who
was
employed as a Khalasi/co-pilot/co-driver of
a truck. During the loading of wheat sacks
with the aid of an iron rod in the truck, the
rod came into contact with a electric wire,
as a result of which the petitioner's husband
died due to electrocution. A G.D. entry
regarding the incident was made at the
Police
Station
Gambhirpur,
District
Azamgarh, by Harishchandra Gupta, the
father of Gopal Gupta, the owner of the
Godown, where the petitioner's husband
was working. It is further stated that the
petitioner resides within the jurisdiction of
Police Station Tahbarpur in the same
district. The petitioner, being the wife of
the deceased, claims compensation under
the Mukhya Mantri Krishak Durghatana
Kalyan Yojana (hereinafter referred to as
"the Scheme").

Contentions of the Petitioner

4. The learned counsel appearing on
the behalf of the petitioner has made the
following submissions:

a) Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that although the father
of the deceased is alive and the agricultural
land stands in the name of the father, the
deceased Sanjay Yadav, being his son, was
730 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the breadwinner of the family and,
therefore, he may be treated as having
income from agriculture.

b) Learned counsel for the
petitioner has further relied upon the the
Scheme, under which a person who is
either a tenure holder or a co-tenure holder
of agricultural land or the breadwinner of
the family from the said agricultural land is
entitled to get the benefit of the said
Scheme. It is submitted that being a family
member, the petitioner is also entitled to
the
benefit
as
provided
under
the
Government Order.

c) It is further submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner had earlier approached this
Hon'ble Court and this Hon'ble Court
directed that the report dated 19.12.2022,
prepared by the revenue authorities treating
the petitioner's source of income as nonagricultural, could not be relied upon. The
writ court order dated 02.03.2023 is
delineated below:

"Heard
Sri
Rajesh
Pandey,
holding brief of Sri Ajay Kumar Maurya,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Amit Manohar, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel.

The petitioner has moved an
application for ex gratia payment on
17.11.2022
under
the
"Mukhyamantri
Krishak
Durghatna
Kalyan
Yojna".
Alongwith the application, the petitioner
has also filed an affidavit of her father in
law i.e. the father of her deceased husband
that
the
deceased
was
engaged
in
agricultural operation with him. There is
no denial of the fact that the deceased's
father has agricultural land in village
Rewara, Parvezpur and the deceased was
doing agricultural operation therein, and
yet the respondent no.3 has submitted a
report stating in one line that "e`rd d`"kd
dh Js.kh esa ugh vkrk gS o ifjokj dk eqf[k;k
ugha Fkk". This observation made by
respondent no.3 in his report, prima facie
appears to be incorrect inasmuch as the
deceased
was
doing
agricultural
operations, in the agricultural land of his
father, and was head of his family. He died
leaving behind him his wife and four minor
children.

In view of the facts as noted
above, we direct the respondent no.2 to
consider the application of the petitioner
for ex gratia payment under the aforesaid
scheme, within four weeks and take an
appropriate decision in accordance with
law within four weeks from today, without
being influenced by the report of the
respondent no.3 dated 19.12.2022. If the
respondent no.2 finds that the petitioner is
entitled for ex gratia payment under the
aforesaid scheme, then he shall ensure that
ex gratia amount is paid to the petitioner
within next two weeks. With the aforesaid
directions the writ petition is disposed of.

Learned Chief Standing counsel
shall inform this order in writing to the
respondent no.2 within three days, for
compliance."

d)
The
State
Government,
by
Government
Order
dated
28.02.2020,
introduced the welfare scheme titled
'Mukhya
Mantri
Krishak
Durghatana
Kalyan
Yojana'
with
effect
from
14.09.2019, for the benefit of the families
of deceased persons as well as individuals
rendered handicapped due to accidents. For
the purpose of determining eligibility of the
deceased, the definition of 'farmer' has been
prescribed under Clause (2) of the said
Government Order. The relevant portion of
the Government Order is reproduced
hereinbelow:"
10 All. Savita Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
731

विषय- उत्तर प्रिेश के कृषकों
की िुघाटनािश मृत्यु/दिव्यांगता की
जस्थनत में "मुख्यमंत्री कृषक िुघाटना
कल्याण योजना" के कक्रयान्ियन हेतु
दिशा ननिेश।

.......राज्य सरकार द्िारा
कृषकों की िुघाटनािश मृत्यु/दिव्यांग
होने की जस्थनत में उनके पररिार को
सामाजजक सुरक्षा प्रिान करने के
उििेचय से "मुख्यमंत्री कृषक िुघाटना
कल्याण योजना" संचालित ककये जाने
का ननणाय लिया गया है, जजसके लिए
ननम्नित दिशा ननिेश ननिााररत ककये
जा रहे हैं:-

1-यह योजना ददनांक 14
ससर्म्बर, 2019 से प्रभािी होगी।

2- पात्रर्ा (कृषक की पररभाषा)-

यह योजना उत्तर प्रिेश के
ननिासी ऐसे कृषकों के लिए है, जो
िुघाटनािश मृत / दिव्यांग हो जाते है।
कृषक का तात्पया ननम्नलिखखत है:-

(1) राजस्ि अलििेखों अथाात
खतौनी में िजा खातेिार/सहखातेिार ।
अथिा

(2) खार्ेदार / सहखार्ेदार के
पररिार के ऐसे कर्ाऊ सदस्य (Bread
winner) जजनकी आजीविका का र्ुख्य
स्रोर् खार्ेदार / सहखार्ेदार के नार्
दजम भूसर् से होने िाली कृवष आय है।
.........
अथिा

(3) ऐसे िूलमह न व्यजक्त जो
पटटे से प्राप्त िूलम पर अथिा बटाई
पर कृवष काया करते हैं तथा जजनकी
जीविका का मृख्य सािन ऐसे पट्टे
अथिा बटाई पर ि गयी िूलम पर कृवष
काया है। पट्टेिार के अन्तगात असामी
पट्टेिार, सरकार पट्टेिार, तथा ननजी
पट्टेिार सजम्मलित होंगे।
.......

4. आय-
कृषक की मृत्यु / दिव्यांगता की नतचथ
को उसकी आयु 18 से 70 िषा तक हो।

5- योजना का आच्छादन-

(1) यदि आग िगने, बाढ,
त्रबजि चगरने, करेन्ट िगने, सॉप के
काटने, जीि-जन्तु/जानिर द्िारा काटने /
मारने / आकमण से, समुद्र, नि , झीि,
तािाब, पोखार ि कुएं में डूबने, आंिी-
तूफान, िृक्ष से चगरने / िबने, मकान
चगरने, रेि / रोड/ िायुयान / अन्य
िाहन आदि से िुघाटना, िू-स्खिन,
िूकंप, गैस ररसाि, विस्फोट, सीिर चैम्बर
में चगरने अथिा अन्य ककसी कारण से
कृषक की िुघाटनािश मृत्यु / दिव्यांगता
होती है, तो कृषक /विचिक िाररस /
732 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
िाररसों को इस योजना के अन्तगात
आचथाक सहायता अनुमन्य होगी।

e) In the impugned order dated
29.03.2023, it has been recorded that in
compliance of the earlier order of this
Court dated 02.03.2023, petitioner has not
filed any representation, however, the
petitioner had filed the representation dated
14.03.2023 in compliance of the earlier
order of this Court, which is delineated
below:

"सेिा में दिनांक-14.03.
 2023 श्रीमान जजिाचिकार महोिय,
आजमगढ, उत्तर प्रिेश।

विषयः-
मुख्यमंत्री
ककसान
बीमा
पत्रािि
ननरस्त
ककये
जाने
तथा
माननीय उच्च न्यायािय के अनुपािन
हेतु।

महोिया,

सविनय ननिेिन यह है कक मैं
सविता यािि ननिालसनी ग्राम रेिरा
परिेजपुर, तहसीि ननजामाबाि जजिा
आजमगढ मैने अपनी कृषक िुघाटना
पत्रािि तहसीि कायाािय में प्रस्तुत की
थी जजसे दिनांक 19.12.2022 को ननरस्त
कर दिया गया जो शासनािेश के
विचिसम्मत नह था जजसके उपरांत
मैने अपना प्राथाना पत्र जजिा कायाािय
तथा तहसीि कायाािय में प्रस्तुत ककया
था परन्तु कोई प्रनतककया न लमिने पर
उच्च न्यायािय इिाहाबाि में ररट
वपट शन फाइि की जजसका आिेश
दिनांक 02.03.2023 को आया।

महोिय मेरा ननिेिन यह है कक ररट
वपट शन 5602/2023 दिनांक 02.03.2023
का सन्ििा ग्रहण करें तथा ननयमानुसार
कायािाह करें।

संिग्नकः-
1. उच्च न्यायािय के आिेश की प्रनत
प्राचथानी
2. ननरस्त पत्रािि
सविता यािि
Μ. 7275867431
3. िेखपाि, तहसीििार की जांच आख्या
4. ग्राम प्रिान द्िारा जार प्रमाण पत्र
जजसमें मृतक के व्यिसाय को कृवष
काया में कायारत प्रमाखणत ककया गया
है।

Contentions of the Respondent

5. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents has rebutted the
arguments of petitioner and made following
submissions:

a) It is submitted by learned Standing
Counsel that no land has been recorded in
the name of the deceased person as the
10 All. Savita Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
733
father of the deceased is still alive. All the
Agricultural land is recorded in the name of
deceased father and the deceased was doing
the work of Khalasi of a truck and he was
loading the wheat sacks in the truck with
the help of iron rod and the iron rod
touched the electric wire due to which the
deceased died due to electrocution.

b) Learned Standing Counsel further
submits that the deceased resides in the
jurisdiction of Police Station Tahbarpur
while he died doing the work of loading as
Khalasi in jurisdiction of Gambhirpur that
is far from the place of residence of the
deceased, therefore, it cannot be said that
the deceased was doing job of farmer and
the same is evident from the perusal of the
G.D. entry which was recorded by the
police on the information of Harishchandra
Gupta, who is the father of Gopal Gupta,
owner of the godown. Although, the
deceased was a son of farmer but he was
not doing job of farmer with his father and
his main source of income is not from
agriculture as he was doing the job of a
truck khalasi/co-driver. Therefore, the
claim of the petitioner was rejected by the
District Magistrate/Collector, Azamgarh,
vide the impugned order dated 29.03.2023,
on the ground that the deceased was a codriver of the truck and that his primary
source of income was not from the
agricultural work.

c) The Government Order clearly
stipulates the eligibility criteria for payment
under the Scheme. In the Government
Order dated 28.02.2020, the term 'Krishak'
has been defined as under:

(1) the tenure holders or cotenure holders who name has been
mentioned in the revenue record or in
khatauni of the Tehsil;

(2) a breadwinner family member
of the tenure holder of co-tenure holder
whose main source of livelihood is based
on the agricultural income arising out of
the land recorded in the name of the tenure
holder or co-tenure holder or;

(3) other land less person who
has obtained land by way of lease or batai
(rent) for doing agricultural work on the
land and the lease holders, including asami
lease holders, government lease holders or
private lease holders.

d) In compliance with the order of this
Hon'ble Court, the impugned order has
been passed. In the said impugned order, it
has been observed that the petitioner had
not submitted any representation before the
competent authorities. On the basis of the
material available on record, the petitioner
was held not to be a "farmer" but was
engaged as a co-driver (khalasi).

Analysis and Conclusion

6.
We
have
given
thoughtful
consideration to the submissions advanced
by the learned counsel for the parties and
have also perused the relevant records of
the case and the affidavits filed on behalf of
both the parties. In our view the impugned
order has not considered all aspects of the
case and rejected the application of the
petitioner without assigning proper reasons.
The impugned order does not take into
consideration the observations made by the
High Court in its order dated March 2,
2023.
Furthermore,
just
because
the
petitioner was working as a Khalasi when
the incident took place would not by itself
mean that he was not engaged as a farmer
in his father's farm. It is very common to
find persons doing odd jobs during offseason of farming. That by itself would not
734 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
disentitle him from the benefit of the
Scheme.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is
directed to submit a fresh comprehensive
application/ representation along with the
entire document declaring her husband as a
farmer so that a such decision may be taken
by the authority concerned in respect of exgratia payment given to a Krishak under the
Scheme.

8. After perusing the entire record, the
District Magistrate should obtain a fresh
report keeping in mind sub-clause (2) of
paragraph no. 2 of the Government Order
dated 28.02.2020 by which the State
Government has introduced the welfare
scheme title 'Mukhya Mantri Krishak
Durghatana Kalyan Yojana' and ascertain
as to whether the petitioner was the
breadwinner member of the family of the
tenure holder and whether the source of
income of the deceased was agriculture
work or not. Thereafter, proper opportunity
of hearing should be granted to the
petitioner for claiming the benefit under the
Scheme and thereafter pass a reasoned and
speaking order.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order
dated 29.03.2023 passed by the respondent
no. 2, District Magistrate, Azamgarh, is
quashed and set aside with a direction to
the District Magistrate to consider the
claim of the petitioner after providing
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,
preferably within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order.

10. With the above direction, the writ
petition is allowed.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 734
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.

Writ C No. 15336 of 2018

Karmesh Kumar Srivastava Prop. Venus
Trading Corp. ...Petitioner
Versus
City Development Secretary & Ors.
...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sudhir Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C S.C., Pranjal Mehrotra

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to Whether a writ of mandamus
can be issued under Article 226 of the
Constitution directing payment of alleged dues
arising out of a pure contractual claim, when (i)
the respondents dispute the claim, and (ii) no
admitted amount is shown to exist.

Headnotes
Constitution
of
India
-
Art.
226
-
Maintainability
of
Writ
Petition
-
Contractual Matters - Disputed Questions
of Fact - Interpretation, implementation
and enforcement of contractual clauses
cannot be the subject-matter of a writ
petition - writ jurisdiction cannot be
invoked for recovery of money under a
non-statutory contract, particularly when
the amount is disputed - Contract Act,
1872 - Purely Private Law Contracts - No
Statutory Flavour - Contract with a
statutory body does not become statutory
merely because executed for public utility
- breach and enforcement of such contract
must
be
adjudicated
through
civil
remedies or arbitration (if provided) - Writ
of Mandamus - When Not Issuable - Writ
of mandamus for release of payments lies