HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 26393 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J. HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 3. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.04.2025 by which the claim of the petitioner under Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana (in short 'Scheme') has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Government Order dated 28.02.2020, a certificate from Gram Pradhan about the death is sufficient to extend the benefit of the 'Scheme' in favour of the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 12.07.2023 passed in Writ-C No.14395 of 2023 (Harish Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others) and judgment dated 08.04.2025 passed in Writ-C No.8569 of 2025 (Gauri vs. State of U.P. and Others). He next submitted that alongwith supplementary affidavit a certificate/letter dated 23.08.2025 issued by the Gram Pradhan is also annexed, which clearly reflects that the husband of the petitioner died in road accident. 5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that alongwith Government Order dated 28.02.2020 a formal application has also been annexed, which provides that to ascertain the cause of death, post mortem Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arunendra Kumar Shukla, Ram Krishna Dubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Priyanka Devi Widow .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) report of the deceased is necessary and where the post mortem is not possible, inquest report is to be submitted, however, in the present case, both the documents are not on record, therefore, the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner is not liable to be interfered with. He also submitted that as per death certificate dated 13.08.2024 issued by the Maurya Sachkhand Hospital the cause of death is Cardiac Failure and shock due to sepsis. He further pointed out that so far as the judgments of this Court referred by the petitioner are concerned, in both the judgments first information report was lodged after the accident but the post mortem was not conducted and inquest report was also not prepared and the Court was of the opinion that it is the duty of the police authority to conduct post mortem and prepare the inquest report but unfortunately, in the present case no FIR has been lodged. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid facts. 7. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the records. 8. The impugned order clearly shows that in the present case post mortem was not conducted and inquest report was also not prepared, therefore, on same ground the District Magistrate, Mathura has rejected the claim of the petitioner. We have also perused the Government Order dated 28.02.2020 alongwith application form which also provides requirement of post mortem report and inquest report, as the case may be, which are absolutely missing in the present case. Both the documents clearly provide that in case FIR was not lodged and there was no post mortem report or inquest report then the family members of the deceased are not liable for the benefit of the Scheme. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. October 29, 2025 Nitendra WRIC No. 26393 of 2025 2 (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.) (Neeraj Tiwari,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITENDRA TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad