Allahabad High Court
PUSHPA DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
A government employee who holds agricultural land is deemed a farmer under the 2020 Government Order, making his dependents eligible for benefits under the Scheme, so the rejection of the petitioner's claim was unlawful.
Summary
The petitioner, Pushpa Devi, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order rejecting her claim for financial assistance under the Mukhya Mantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana, 2020, on the ground that her deceased husband was a government employee and thus not a "farmer". She submitted evidence that her husband owned 0.1420 hectares of agricultural land as a co‑sharer and relied on a Government Order dated 12‑Oct‑2022 clarifying that dependents of a government employee who is also an agriculturist are eligible for the scheme, subject only to deductions for other benefits. The respondents argued that the scheme was intended only for dependents of farmers and that a government employee does not qualify as a farmer. The Court held that the presence of agricultural land brings the deceased within the definition of "farmer" under the 28‑Feb‑2020 Government Order, and the 12‑Oct‑2022 clarification further entitles the petitioner to the benefit. Consequently, the order rejecting the claim was set aside and the respondent was directed to reconsider the petitioner's claim in accordance with natural‑justice principles.
Issues considered
- Whether a deceased government employee who owned agricultural land qualifies as a "farmer" under the Mukhya Mantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana, 2020.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim can be lawfully rejected solely on the basis that her husband was a government employee.
- Whether the Government Order dated 12‑Oct‑2022 overrides the exclusion and makes dependents of such an employee eligible for scheme benefits.
Legislation cited
- BNS, 2023 — s. 106, 281, 324(4)
Subjects
- farmer definition
- government employee
- agricultural land ownership
- scheme eligibility
- dependents of deceased
- natural justice
- Mukhya Mantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana
- government order clarification
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 37483 of 2026
Pushpa Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Janardan Prasad Patel
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard Shri Janardan Prasad Patel, Advocate, appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents.
2. The present petition has been filed for quashing the order
dated 31.05.2026, by which the claim of the petitioner under
the Mukhya Mantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana, 2020
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Scheme') has been rejected on
the basis that the husband of the petitioner was a government
employee; and as such is not covered under the definition of
"farmer" as provided under the Scheme.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is an
undisputed fact that the petitioner's husband died in an accident
on 05.03.2025; and a prompt FIR to the said effect was already
registered on 06.03.2025, as Case Crime No. 0058 of 2025
under Sections 281, 106, 324(4) of BNS, 2023, and thereafter
the postmortem report and other documents were also
submitted, along with the claim under the Scheme before the
respondent No. 2, however, without considering the claim of
the petitioner on merits, the authority has rejected it on the
ground that the petitioner was a government employee.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
WRIC No. 37483 of 2026
2
copy of the Khatauni has also been appended which clearly
demonstrates that Gata No. 275 admeasuring 0.1420 hectares,
has been registered in the name of the petitioner's husband, as a
co-sharer; and as such the impugned rejection without
considering the said ground and also the fact that the petitioner
comes within the definition of "farmer" as provided under the
Government Order dated 28.02.2020, is absolutely erroneous.
5. A further reliance has been placed on a Government Order
dated 12.10.2022, wherein the eligibility as provided under the
Government Order dated 28.02.2020 has been clarified; to state
that the dependents or the legal heirs of any agriculturist, on the
date of the death of the said employee, being in the
employment of the Government of India or the State
Government, shall be entitled for the financial assistance under
the Scheme; however, if the said employee being registered
under the Pradhan Mantri Jeewan Jyoti Beema Yojana or
Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Beema Yojana, the benefit so granted
under the same Scheme, shall be deducted; and only the
balance amount shall be paid under the Scheme, which the
dependents or the legal heirs may be entitled.
6. Placing reliance on the aforesaid Government Order dated
12.10.2022, it has been contended that in view of the aforesaid,
the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of the Scheme of
2020, merely on the ground that the petitioner's husband was a
government employee; and such consideration not being
accorded, by the respondent No.2, the impugned order is liable
to be vitiated on this ground alone.
7. It is further submitted that once the evidence by way of
Khatauni regarding the agricultural land, in the name of the
deceased employee was available before the respondent No.2,
the same could not have been ignored and the rejection merely
on the ground that the deceased husband of the petitioner was a
government employee is patently illegal; and her claim ought
to have been considered under the Scheme of 2020; but the
WRIC No. 37483 of 2026
3
concerned authorities without any application of mind and
according due consideration to the claim of the petitioner, in
violation of the principles of natural justice, has rejected the
claim of the petitioner and the petitioner being a poor lady and
her husband being the only breadwinner of the family, is
suffering from grave financial crisis.
8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the intent
of the Scheme was to provide financial assistance to the
dependents and legal heirs of the deceased farmer and since the
husband of the petitioner was a government employee, he not
being covered under the definition of "farmer", there is no
infirmity in the rejection of the claim raised by the petitioner;
but he could not dispute the fact that the Government Order
dated 12.10.2022 while clarifying the eligibility under the
Government Order dated 28.02.2020, with reference to the
definition of farmer, further clarifies that even the dependents /
legal heirs of the deceased government employee, shall be
entitled to the benefit, and the only embargo is that in case the
said employee is also entitled to other benefits accruing under
the Pradhan Mantri Jeewan Jyoti Beema Yojana or Pradhan
Mantri Suraksha Beema Yojana, the benefit under the Scheme
shall be payable, only to the extent of the balance, which
remains after the deduction of the financial assistance being
availed under the Pradhan Mantri Jeewan Jyoti Beema Yojana
or Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Beema Yojana.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered
view that once the deceased employee is covered under the
definition of "farmer" as contemplated under the Government
Order dated 28.02.2020, since it is also not being disputed that
an agricultural land is registered in his name, the rejection of
the claim of the petitioner, cannot be sustained.
10. The rejection of the claim of the petitioner, merely on the
ground that the petitioner's husband was a government
employee, also cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and as
WRIC No. 37483 of 2026
4
such the impugned order dated 31.05.2026 is liable to be set
aside and is accordingly set aside; with a direction to the
respondent No. 2 to consider the claim of the petitioner under
the Scheme, 2020 having due regard to the Government Order
dated 12.10.2022; and in case any further corroborative
material is required for consideration of the claim of the
petitioner, it shall be incumbent upon the respondent No. 2 to
give an opportunity to the petitioner to bring on record the said
evidence; and with due adherence to the principles of natural
justice, it is expected that respondent No. 2 shall be deciding
the claim of the petitioner afresh as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of two months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
11. With the aforesaid observations / direction, the writ petition
stands allowed.
(Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
September 18, 2026
S.Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
SHASHI PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…