The Allahabad High Court has held that beneficial welfare schemes such as the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna cannot be rendered ineffective by adopting an unduly technical approach.
Emphasising the object of the scheme, the Court observed,
“The procedural requirements under a beneficial scheme cannot be placed above the substantive object sought to be achieved by the scheme.”
It further held that documents contemplated under the scheme are only a means to achieve its larger purpose and that genuine claims cannot be defeated merely because postmortem reports or panchanamas are unavailable.
The order was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Garima Prashad while allowing a writ petition filed by Smt. Urmila Devi.
The Bench noted that repeated cases coming before the Court reveal that authorities are rejecting claims mechanically without appreciating the welfare character of the scheme.
In a significant observation, the Court said,
“Such recurring matters reflect a pattern of hyper-technical application of the scheme by the authorities, thereby defeating the very object of the scheme, which is intended to provide immediate relief to families of deceased agriculturists, and reducing the scheme itself to a mere procedural formality.”
The Bench found that the Government Order dated February 28, 2020 does not prescribe any specific outer limit for disposal of claims.
Consequently, applications are often kept pending for prolonged periods, sometimes stretching into years, thereby defeating the scheme’s remedial purpose.
It noticed that delayed disbursement defeats the remedial purpose of the scheme and deprives bereaved families of timely assistance when they are in greatest financial distress.
Consequently, the Court directed that applications under the scheme should ordinarily be decided expeditiously and preferably within three months from the date of submission.
Read also: Reliable Dying Declaration Sufficient to Sustain Conviction
According to the facts, the petitioner stated that her husband, Vinay Yadav, a agriculturist, died in a road accident on June 3, 2025. She, thereafter sought compensation under the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna, but the District Magistrate, Prayagraj, rejected the claim on March 12, 2026, because of the absence of a postmortem report and a panchanama.
While setting aside the rejection order, the Court observed that where materials such as FIR, site plan, injury report, police investigation, chargesheet and other contemporaneous records are available, they must be duly considered for determining the genuineness of the claim.
The Bench noted that,
“The requirement of such documents is intended to aid and facilitate the competent authority in arriving at satisfaction regarding the genuineness of the claim and not to frustrate the claim itself where other reliable materials are available on record.”
The Court also underlined the need for a humane approach while dealing with claims filed by poor and distressed families. The Court observed,
“While considering such applications, the competent authority is expected to keep in mind that the claimants are poor persons, not literate and they also do not know the intricacies of law and, therefore, if there was some shortcomings or infirmities in the applications filed by the claimants, the authorities should have taken due care and should have made every endeavor to inquire into the cause of death so that if the dependents of the deceased family are entitled to compensation, the same shall be provided to them in order to fulfill the spirit of the scheme. Minor procedural deficiencies cannot become grounds to deny substantive benefits under a welfare scheme where the genuineness of the claim can otherwise be verified through inquiry.”
Finding the claim genuine on the basis of the FIR, chargesheet, injury reports, and other contemporaneous evidence, the Court quashed the District Magistrate’s order dated 12.03.2026 and allowed the petition.
It also directed the Registrar (Compliance) to circulate a copy of the judgment to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, so that appropriate circulars and instructions may be issued to all District Magistrates of the State for effective implementation of the aforesaid yojna in its true spirit and object.
Case: Smt. Urmila Devi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others
Case No: Writ – C No. – 17910 of 2026
Date of Order: 08.05.2026
Status: Allowed
