Allahabad High Court
NIRMALA DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The order rejecting the petitioner's claim solely on the ground of being time‑barred is quashed, and the claim must be considered on its merits.
Summary
Petitioner Nirmala Devi filed a writ petition seeking to quash the District Magistrate's order dated 7 September 2024 that rejected her claim for Rs.5 lakh under the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna on the ground that the claim was time‑barred. The petitioner argued that the delay was condonable, relying on the Allahabad High Court’s decision in Smt. Mira Devi (2023) and the Supreme Court’s ruling in The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sanjesh (2022). The respondents contended that the scheme permits a maximum filing period of 75 days, as per Clause 10, and that the claim fell outside this period. The Court held that a claim cannot be dismissed solely on a technical time‑bar when the scheme and precedent allow for condonation of delay and require consideration on merits. Consequently, the order rejecting the claim was quashed and the matter was remitted to the District Magistrate/Collector to decide the claim afresh within two months. The writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- The claim under the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna was rejected solely on the ground of being time‑barred; whether such a rejection is permissible.
- Whether the delay in filing the claim is condonable under the scheme and applicable case law.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the authority to provide the financial assistance.
Subjects
- ex‑gratia compensation
- time‑bar
- Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna
- certiorari
- mandamus
- delay condonation
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17964 of 2025
Nirmala Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Narendra Pratap Kushawaha
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.
1. Heard Sri Narendra Pratap Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents.
2. Present writ petition has been filed, inter-alia, with the following prayers:-
"(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to
quash the order dated 7.9.2024 passed by the District
Magistrate/respondent no.2 without considering the material
facts, circumstances and evidences of the case, whereby the claim
of the petitioner with regard to payment of amount of Rs.5 lakh
under 'Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna' has
been rejected on the ground of latches. (II) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent
no.2 to provide financial assistance to the petitioner under the
'Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna' formulated by
the State Government vide Government Order dated 28.02.2020
within stipulated time to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no.2 has
rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of ex-gratia compensation under
the scheme 'Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana' vide
order dated 7.9.2024 only on the ground that the claim was time barred and
has not addressed on the merits of the claim. He has placed reliance upon the
judgement and order dated 6.1.2023 passed by coordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Smt. Mira Devi Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, Writ-
C No.33874 of 2023, Neutral Citation No.2023:AHC:212770-DB, wherein
this Court while relying on the judgement and order dated 11.3.2022 passed
by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of The Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Sanjesh & another), Special Leave Petition (C)
No.3978 of 2022, (2022) LawSuit (SC) 343 has held that the delay was
condonable, copy of the said order produced by learned counsel for the
petitioner is taken on record.
WRIC No. 17964 of 2025
2
4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has stated that there is a time limit of
45 days which in special circumstances can be extended by further period of
one month, therefore, the maximum time for presentation of such claim is 75
days and relies upon Clause 10 of the said scheme dated 24.2.2020,
however, he could not dispute the correctness of judgement rendered by this
Court in Re. Smt. Mira Devi (Supra).
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
record, we find that the sole reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner
is beyond the time prescribed under the said yojana. This Court in Re. Smt.
Mira Devi (Supra) while relying on the judgement passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra) was of the
opinion that the matter required to be addressed on merits by the competent
authority.
6. Thus in view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the considered
opinion that the rejection of claim of the petitioner by the order impugned
dated 7.9.2024 solely on the ground of being time barred, cannot be
sustained and as such is hereby quashed.
7. The matter is remitted back to the Respondent no.2/District
Magistrate/Collector,Kushinagar to decide the claim of the petitioner afresh
on its merit and as per law within a period of two months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
8. The writ petition stands allowed in terms of the aforesaid order.
9. No order as to cost.
(Vivek Saran,J.) (Prakash Padia,J.)
September 29, 2026
Gaurav Kuls
Digitally signed by :-
GAURAV KULSHRESTHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…