Clarificatory notifications for beneficial welfare schemes operate retrospectively and should be interpreted liberally, giving weight to consistent contemporaneous evidence over technical medical inconclusiveness when the medical report does not contradict eyewitness accounts.

AFR

(Per Swarupama Chaturvedi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Shashi Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned brief holder appearing for the State-respondents.

2. The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to pay Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioner in view of the Government notification dated 02.08.2018 and the government order dated 08.07.2021.

3. The background fact of the matter is that on 23.08.2019, wife of the petitioner, Smt. Raj Kumari, while working in an agricultural field got snake bite and resultantly died. Subsequently, in this regard, General Diary entry bearing No. 015 dated 24.08.2019 was recorded by the police, wherein it was written that the deceased had died due to snake bite. On the same day, inquest report was prepared, and the statements of the witnesses got recorded, which indicated that the death had occurred due to snake bite. The postmortem examination of the deceased was also conducted on 24.08.2019, however, the postmortem report did not conclude the cause of death as such and recorded that the cause of death could not be ascertained. Consequently, the viscera of the deceased was preserved and handed over to authorities for examination.

4. Subsequently, petitioner applied for the ex gratia payment, claiming that death of his wife was due to snake bite, which stood covered under the Government notification dated 02.08.2018 for benefits in terms of compensation. According to the procedure, site inspection was conducted, during which the Lekhpal interacted with people in village, who were present and had witnessed the incident. Thereafter, report dated 23.03.2022 was prepared and submitted by the Lekhpal. The report recorded that people present there had stated that the death was due to snake bite. Following this, on 30.03.2022, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Konch, District Jalaun, wrote a letter to the Additional District Magistrate, Jalaun. The letter relied on the Lekhpal's report, mentioning the on-site inspection and statements made by people in village, who were present at that time. People present there, stated that the petitioner's wife while engaged in agriculture work in her field died on 23.08.2019 due to snake bite. However, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concluded as finding that the case did not get covered under government notifications and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to ex gratia payment. The reason for the rejection was that postmortem report did not record the reason for death as snake bite, whereas the report, in fact, stated that the cause of death could not be ascertained.

5. Petitioner also raised his grievance through the “Jansunwai Portal” by filing online complaints bearing reference Nos. 40016522003379 and 40016522005028. He reiterated his claim that his wife had died due to snake bite and that ex gratia payment had not been granted to him. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Konch, again rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 28.05.2022, referring the same Lekhpal’s report dated 23.03.2022 and the postmortem report dated 24.08.2019. The order also referred the Governm