The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for flexibility in considering claims for compensation, especially in deserving cases, and the importance of taking into account genuine reasons for delay in filing claims.

RANJIT SINGH, J.

1. The petitioner is an unfortunate lady, who has lost her husband due to electrocution while doing agricultural work. He was the only bread earner for the family on which his family was fully dependent. For taking benefit of the scheme launched by the State Government in the name of late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi Pariwar Bima Yojna, the petitioner applied for compensation after completing the formalities. The petitioner has averred that she was not aware about the above scheme and, accordingly, applied for the same on 7.07.2010 when she learnt about it. The application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that this was filed beyond the period of six months from the date of death which is the time laid down for making application.

2. The petitioner did make an effort thereafter to stake the claim but the respondents refused to accept the same. She has, accordingly filed this writ petition to challenge this action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

3. As per the reply, death is not in dispute. The claim of the petitioner was forwarded to Nodal Officer, who found that the same is barred by time as the limitation for filing the claim was six months in terms of Clause 5 of the scheme known as Rajiv Gandhi Pariwar Bima Yojna. Since the petitioner had applied for after expiry of six months, the claim has been rejected being time barred. While noticing these facts, it was observed by this Court that this strict interpretation of the provision of the scheme, which is beneficial without making any provision for condoning the delay even in some genuine cases, would make the provisions look arbitrary. State counsel, accordingly, was required to have instructions if the claim of the petitioner could be considered by ignoring the delay in filing the claim. State counsel on instructions submits that the competent authority has been uniformly adopting this procedure and rejecting the claims, which are time barred and no exception can be made in the case of the petitioner.

4. Perhaps the observation of the Court has not been correctly appreciated and considered by the respondents. Any provision, which is made for making of the payment within some time bound period, may have to be followed. However, such beneficial provision cannot be so strictly construed as to call for no exception. If that strict view is adopted, it will make the provision look arbitrary. In deserving cases, there could always be a scope of some interference by condoning the delay. Suppose a person, who is otherwise entitled to claim the relief is prevented from making an application for some valid reason, then it would be unfair on the part of the respondents to deny the claim only on the ground that it is moved with a delay.

5. Similarly, the delay in some cases may be very negligible say one or two days then it would still sound unfair for the State not to entertain the claim only on the ground that it was not filed within time. There may not be any provision for condoning the delay but in my view such powers would be inherent and if the competent authority sanctions such claim even after six months of death, it cannot be termed without jurisdiction or something which is unfair. Rather closing the doors for grant of benefits of the beneficial and laudable scheme like this, would be unfair.

6. Let us see the purpose for which this scheme has been introduced. After noticing that a lot of people in the State either die or are disabled due to variety of causes including murder or poisoning, it is observed that there is no immediate compensation available in such cases which is a cause of suffering for affected families. Realizing an urgent need of the family this scheme has made a provision for compensation. It is described as novel and innovative scheme and is meant for persons from lower strata of society as income tax payee and Government servants are excluded. Manner to claim compensation and the procedure to c