HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9894 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioners are aggrieved by the order(s) dated August 1, 2025 and August 4, 2025 passed by the opposite party nos.1 and 2, respectively, whereby the application of the petitioners for accidental claim under the "Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana" has been rejected on the ground that the mother of the petitioners was not a bread winner. The additional ground given in the order is that the petitioner has already claimed for the accidental death of the father, who has expired along with the mother in the same accident. 3. Upon perusal of the Government Order dated 28.02.2020, we do not find any limitation for claiming accidental claim in respect of more than one person, if both were the bread winners of the family. Clause 2 of the Government Order dated 28.02.2020 reads as follows:- "2-पा्ऴता (कृ षक की पिरभाषा)- यह योजना उ्तर ्ऺदेश के िनवासी ऐसे कृ षकों के िलए है, जो दुघर्टनावश मृत/िद्िांग हो जाते हैं। कृ षक का तात्पयर् िनम्निलिखत से हैः- (1) राजस्व अिभलेखों अथार्त् खतौनी में दजर् खातेदार/सहखातेदार। अथवा (2) खातेदार/सहखातेदार के पिरवार के ऐसे कमाऊ सदस्य (Bread winner) िजनकी आजीिवका का मुख्य ्सोत खातेदार/सहखातेदार के नाम दजर् भूिम से होने वाली कृ िष आय है। अथवा Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ganga Prasad Mishra, Abhinav Mishra, Shivam Dixit Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Vikas Yadav And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) (3) ऐसे भूिमहीन ्िि्व जो पटटे से ्ऺाप्त भूिम पर अथवा बटाई पर कृ िष कायर् करते हैं तथा िजनकी जीिवका का मुख्य साधन ऐसे प्टे अथवा बटाई पर ली गयी भूिम पर कृ िष कायर् है। प्टेदार के अन्तगर्त असामी प्टेदार, सरकारी प्टेदार तथा िनजी प्टेदार सिम्मिलत होंगें।" 4. In our view, the father and the mother of the petitioners fall under clause 2(ii) as the father was the Khatedaar and the mother was a person, who was working in the land of which the father was the Khatedaar. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that parents of the petitioner would work in the field and accordingly they have to be considered as bread winners. 6. In light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the petitioners have to bring on record more evidence to show that the mother was also working in the field and was a bread winner. 7. We accordingly quash and set aside the impugned order(s) and direct the authorities to grant another opportunity to the petitioners to bring on record document(s) to prove that the mother also worked in the field and accordingly was a bread winner. Thereafter after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, a reasoned and speaking order should be passed in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from today. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s), the writ petition is disposed of. October 8, 2025 Raj WRIC No. 9894 of 2025 2 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench