HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 17575 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner by means of present writ petition has prayed for following relief:- "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to decide the petitioner's claim application dated 19.09.2024 under the scheme Mukhyamantri Kisan and Sarvahit Beema Yojna. ii. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. iii. To award the cost of writ petition in favour of the petitioner." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that husband of the petitioner, late Kumar Mishra Prabhat was an agriculturist and he was covered under Mukhyamantri Kisan and Sarvahit Beema Yojna. The husband of the petitioner died in an accident on 20.06.2017. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted a claim for compensation before the Oriental Insurance Company which was rejected on 03.07.2018 on the ground that the claim submitted by the petitioner is time barred under the Government Order dated 20.06.2012 and compensation under the said scheme cannot be provided. 4. It is the District Magistrate under the Government Order dated 20.06.2012 who is final authority to decide the claim and once the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the said Insurance Company, the matter automatically goes before the District Magistrate to look into the grievance and decide the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjeev Kumar Saxena Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Smt. Anjali Mishra .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) claim of the petitioner. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also submitted a representation dated 19.09.2024 in this regard to the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, respondent no. 2, but despite there being a mandate under the Government Order dated 20.06.2012, the District Magistrate has not yet considered the claim of the petitioner for grant of compensation. 6. Learned Standing Counsel states that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and appropriate direction may be issued to respondent no.2 to consider the grievance of the petitioner. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without adverting into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed off permitting the petitioner to file a fresh representation alongwith certified copy of this order raising all her grievances before the respondent no.2- District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar within a period of one month from today. In case, any such representation is filed by the petitioner, the respondent no.2 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner within a period of two months from the date he receives the representation of the petitioner. 8. It is further provided that if respondent no.2 finds that the petitioner is entitled for compensation, he shall ensure the payment of compensation to the petitioner within the aforesaid period in accordance with law. October 6, 2025 Anjali WRIC No. 17575 of 2025 2 (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad