Welfare-oriented administrative schemes must be interpreted liberally, prioritizing the substantive objective over procedural technicalities. Rejection of claims affecting civil or pecuniary rights without granting an opportunity of hearing violates the principles of natural justice, particularly when sufficient alternative evidence establishes the claimant's entitlement.

Judgment :

Garima Prashad, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.N. Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner, by means of the present writ petition, has assailed the order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the respondent No.2/District Magistrate, Prayagraj, whereby the claim of the petitioner under the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna has been rejected.

3. The case of the petitioner is that her husband, namely Vinay Yadav, was an agriculturist who died in a road accident involving a motorcycle on 03.06.2025. After his death, the petitioner applied for compensation under the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna framed under the Government Order dated 28.02.2020. During consideration of the claim, an inquiry was conducted at the level of the District Magistrate through subordinate authorities; however, no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner in the course of such inquiry.

4. The impugned order reflects that since neither postmortem report nor panchanama was available on record before the District Magistrate, the claim was rejected on the ground that under the Government Order dated 28.02.2020, submission of postmortem report or panchanama was mandatory to establish accidental death and, in absence thereof, the claim was not covered under the scheme.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the impugned order, contended that sufficient material existed on record to establish that the death of the deceased was accidental in nature. It has been submitted that an FIR was lodged on 16.07.2025 against vehicle No. UP70 HK 5914. The police also prepared the site plan regarding the accident and after investigation submitted chargesheet against the owner of the said vehicle. It has been further submitted that the status of the deceased as an agriculturist has never been disputed and the claim of the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground that postmortem report and panchanama were not available on record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the right to seek compensation under the scheme flows from the Government Order itself and is a beneficial right. It is contended that if the District Magistrate had any doubt regarding the cause of death of the deceased, he ought to have issued notice and afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to establish that the death was accidental and that she fulfilled the conditions of the scheme. It is further contended that rejection of such claim entails serious civil and pecuniary consequences and, therefore, compliance with the principles of natural justice was mandatory before passing the impugned order. It is also argued that the FIR, injury report and other materials on record clearly establish accidental death and that the impugned order reflects complete non-application of mind.

7. Per contra, learned Chief Standing Counsel submits that under the Government Order, either a postmortem report or panchanama is required to be furnished to establish accidental death and, since neither of the said documents was available on record, the District Magistrate has committed no illegality in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. It is, however, fairly admitted that there is no other ineligibility or impediment in allow