IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 16.03.2026 Smt. Kamla ….Petitioner vs.

State of Haryana and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. Sanchit Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Akshit Pathania, AAG, Haryana Mr. Aakash Singla, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 4 ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 04.02.2025 and 27.06.2025 whereby respondents have rejected her claim for compensation/financial assistance under Mukhya Mantri Kishan Evam Khetihar Mazdoor Jiwan Suraksha Yojna, 2013 (for short ‘2013 Yojna’).

2. The petitioner’s husband namely Sh. Ram Kumar on 30.07.2024 attempted to close hole of the canal (mogha) at around 10:00 PM. Due to heavy water flow, he fell in the canal and drowned. The petitioner under 2013 Yojna applied for compensation. As per said Yojna, in case of death, dependents are entitled to financial assistance of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Secretary, Market Committee, Siwani vide order dated 04.02.2025 dismissed her claim. She preferred an appeal before Secretary, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board. The appellate authority vide order dated 27.06.2025 rejected her claim. The findings recorded by appellate authority read as:-

“After carefully examining the documents presented and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it comes out that the deceased died due to drowning while closing the hole of the canal (mogha). Moreover, as per the report of SDO, Irrigation & Water Resources Department, Siwani dated 27.06.2025 submitted by the Market Committee, Siwani, the closing/opening the hole of the canal (mogha) is executed by the designated officials i.e. Beldar. Hence, it was not the job of the deceased to close the hole of the canal (mogha). Thus, the appellant failed to substantiate his version that the deceased was engaged in agricultural operation at the time of the incident. Further, the scheme provides special assistance to the victims of accidents whose claims are specifically covered under Clause 3(a) to 3(i) of the The Mukhvamantri Kisan Evam Khetihar Majdoor Jiwan Suraksha Yoina - 2013 and the instant case. of the claimant does not fall under any of the claims and the scope of the Yojna. As a sequel of I am of the above discussion and in view of the facts and circumstances, considered view that the claimant is not entitled to claim under the policy and therefore, the impugned order of Secretary-cum-E.O. Market Committee, Siwani is upheld and accordingly, the claim of the claimant is rejected.”

3. Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the fact that deceased did not commit suicide, however, submits that it was not his duty to go to canal and try to close hole of the same. He unnecessarily went to canal and attempted to close hole of the canal which resulted in his death.

His case does not fall in any of the Clauses of Para 3 of 2013 Yojna.

4. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

5. The State has introduced 2013 Yojna with intent to extend financial assistance on account of death of a farmer in any accident. The object of the claim is to provide special assistance to the victims of accident occurred during agricultural operations in the fields, villages, market yards and while going or coming from such places within the State of Haryana. Para 3 of the 2013 Yojna encompasses incidents which are covered by said Yojna. Para 3 of the 2013 Yojna is reproduced as below:- “3. This Scheme shall cover the following incidents:- (a) Death or disablement of any farmers or labourer due to an accident occurred while working on the Agricultural Machinery, Implements, Tools Equipments, Appliances arising out of the above said implements in the Sate of Haryana.

(b) Death or disablement of any farmer or labourer due to an accident occurred while digging well, installing Tubewell or operating Cane