Deceased Farmer's Odd Jobs Won't Disentitle His Family From 'Mukhya Mantri Krishak Durghatana' Scheme Benefit: Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri observed thus while allowing a petition filed by one Savita Yadav, whose husband died of electrocution while loading wheat sacks on a truck in Azamgarh district.

The District Magistrate had rejected her claim for ex-gratia compensation under the said scheme on the ground that her husband was a Truck co-driver (Khalasai) and not a farmer.

The division bench has directed the District Magistrate to pass a reasoned order after obtaining a fresh report keeping in mind sub-clause (2) of paragraph no. 2 of the Government Order concerning the Scheme and ascertain as to whether the petitioner was the 'breadwinner' member of the family of the tenure holder and whether the source of income of the deceased was agriculture work or not.

For context, the sub-clause (2) of paragraph no. 2 of the Government Order in question stipulates the eligibility criteria for payment under the Scheme.

Case in brief

The petitioner's husband, employed as a khalasi/co-driver, died when an iron rod used for loading wheat sacks came into contact with an electric wire.

She sought financial relief under the scheme of the state government. Her earlier writ petition had led to a direction from the High Court on March 2, 2023, directing the authorities to consider her application “without being influenced” by an adverse revenue report that had wrongly categorized her husband's income as non-agricultural.

Despite this, the District Magistrate (in March 2023) again rejected her claim, stating that the deceased was not a “Krishak” but a truck co-driver.

HC's order

The Bench noted that the District Magistrate had failed to consider the earlier High Court observations and rejected the claim “without assigning proper reasons”.

It further said that the impugned order did not examine whether the deceased was a breadwinner of the family whose income was derived from agriculture, as required under Clause (2) of paragraph 2 of the Government Order dated February 28, 2020.

For context, the said provision defines the term 'Krishak' as under:

(1) the tenure holders or co-tenure holders who name has been mentioned in the revenue record or in khatauni of the Tehsil;

(2) a breadwinner family member of the tenure holder of co-tenure holder whose main source of livelihood is based on the agricultural income arising out of the land recorded in the name of the tenure holder or co-tenure holder or;

(3) other land less person who has obtained land by way of lease or batai (rent) for doing agricultural work on the land and the lease holders, including asami lease holders, government lease holders or private lease holders.

Taking into account the said provision, the Court observed thus:

"Just because the petitioner was working as a Khalasi when the incident took place would not by itself mean that he was not engaged as a farmer in his father's farm. It is very common to find persons doing odd jobs during off-season of farming. That by itself would not disentitle him from the benefit of the Scheme".

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the District Magistrate's order and directed that the petitioner be given an opportunity to file a fresh comprehensive representation along with supporting documents showing her husband's engagement in agriculture.

The Bench directed the District Magistrate, Azamgarh, to obtain a fresh report in light of the relevant provisions of the Government Order and to ascertain whether the deceased was the breadwinner of the tenure holder's family and whether his source of income was agricultural.

Thereafter, a reasoned and speaking order must be passed after granting a hearing to the petitioner, preferably within eight weeks.

With these directions, the writ petition was allowed.

Appearances

Advocates Gaurav Tiwari, Ajay Kumar Maurya, Deepak Singh and Kunwar Rajan, for the petitioner

Standing Counsel Birendra Prasad Shukla, for the respondents