Sabina, J.:- The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 16.6.2006 and 3.10.2006 (Annexures P-5 and P-6 respectively), vide which her claim has illegally been rejected. It has further been prayed to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the amount of compensation to the petitioner under Devi Rakshak Scheme (Chaudhary Devi Lal Jan Suraksha Beema Scheme) brief, is that a scheme known as Devi Rakshak Scheme (Chaudhary Devi Lal Jan Suraksha Beema Scheme) (hereinafter referred to as 'the scheme') was being run by respondent No.1. As per this scheme one member of each family in the State of Haryana, who earned livelihood for the family and was between the age of 18 to 80 years, was insured. In the event of his death or permanent disability as a result of accident, specified in the scheme, entitled the dependents for payment of compensation by the insurance company.

2. Husband of the petitioner namely Satish Kumar was the sole bread earner of the family and was working as agriculture labour. He died due to electrocution on 8.7.2005. A report was lodged in the Police Post Nahar, District Rewari in that regard. The petitioner approached the-respondents for grant of compensation. Case of the petitioner was forwarded by respondent No.4 to Tehsildar Kosli, who was directed to submit a detailed enquiry report and he submitted the same on 10.1.2006 (Annexure P-3). Respondent No.4 recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of compensation vide letter dated 16.2.2006 (Annexure P-4). Respondent No.5, however, rejected the claim of the petitioner vide letter dated 16.6.2006 (Annexure P-5). Representation submitted by the petitioner was declined vide order dated 3.10.2006 (Annexure P-6).

3. The State of Haryana made a payment of Rs.6 crore to the New India Assurance Company (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Assurance Company) in lump sum to insure all the families of the State of Haryana subject to certain conditions, who were covered 26.10.2005.

4. Respondent No.4 in his written statement admitted the contentions in the writ petition. It was averred that respondent No.4 had conducted the enquiry and had recommended the case for payment of compensation as per the terms of the policy. Respondent No.5 in its written statement averred that as per the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Annexure P-7) Assurance Company was to pay an amount of Rs.1 lac to the family members of the deceased, who died on account of an accident and was head of the family being sole bread earner. The petitioner produced a copy of the ration card (Annexure P-10) which was not reliable. Although the ration card showed the deceased Satish Kumar to be the head of family but in the details of the family members, the relationship of the deceased with the head of family was mentioned as ‘son’. The name of Sheo Taj was mentioned as head of family from 1998 to 2005 but his (Satish Kumar) name was not shown, later on. Satish Kumar died on 8.7.2005.

5. In replication to the written statement filed by respondent No.5, it was averred by the petitioner that the name of Sheo Taj was mentioned in the old ration card but since he died on 2.11.2001, his name was not mentioned in the new ration card.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed.

7. Annexures P-7 is the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed on 25.10.2004 between the Government of Haryana and the Assurance Company. As per the same, the scheme was the State of Haryana, whose name appeared in the voter lists of the State of Haryana or ration card issued by the concerned department of Haryana except Government employees and income tax payees. It was further clarified in the scheme that if there were more than one bread earners in a family, then only one bread earner would be covered under the scheme. The insurance was available