The rejection of claims under welfare schemes must not be based on narrow interpretations but should consider the substantive relationship between the deceased's activities and their primary source of livelihood.

JUDGMENT :

Swarupama Chaturvedi, J.

1. Heard Sri Vimal Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned Brief Holder for the State respondents.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25.08.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3, Additional District Magistrate, Kannauj, whereby the claim of the petitioner under the “Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana” has been rejected, and further praying for a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent no. 2 to take final decision on application of the petitioner dated 07.09.2021 after calling report in re-enquiry.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner, namely Late Vikas Gupta, died on 29.08.2020 in a road accident. In relation thereto, an F.I.R. was lodged on 30.08.2020 after the post-mortem of the deceased. Late Vikas Gupta was a poor farmer, and at the time of his death, he left behind his aged father, the petitioner (his widow), and three minor children. It is stated that the grandfather and father of the deceased are still alive and the agricultural land continues to be recorded in the name of the grandfather of the deceased. During his lifetime, Late Vikas Gupta was engaged in agricultural work in his village and agriculture was the sole source of livelihood for him and his family.

4. It is a matter of fact that the State Government has brought a welfare scheme known as “Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana” to provide financial assistance to the families of farmers who die in accidents. In this regard, the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, issued a Government Order dated 28.02.2020 laying down the guidelines for extending benefits under the said scheme. Accordingly, after the death of her husband, the petitioner submitted a claim under the aforesaid scheme after completing all required formalities.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that upon submission of the claim, the concerned authorities called for reports from the Lekhpal, who submitted baseless report without conducting proper enquiry. Thereafter, in an executive meeting chaired by the District Magistrate, Kannauj, a decision was taken to reject the petitioner’s claim on the ground that the deceased was earning his livelihood from a general store/ bangle shop and not from agriculture, so the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the order dated 25.08.2021.

6. Aggrieved by the rejection order, the petitioner submitted representation dated 07.09.2021 before the District Magistrate, Kannauj, stating that it was her brother-in-law, who was working merely as a helper in the general store on a monthly payment of Rs. 2,000/-, whereas her husband was a farmer and was engaged solely in agricultural work. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after getting no response, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition.

7. Learned counsel further submits that during his lifetime, deceased was doing agricultural work in his village and the main source of his income and also the family is through agricultural work only. It is further submitted that the deceased was very young and the bread earner for his family and due to his sudden death, entire family is suffering from the financial hardship.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the