Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:67397-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13106 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt Veermati Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivarchan Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Arindam Sinha,J. Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J. 1. Mr. B.R. Verma, learned advocate holding the brief appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is widow. She seeks compensation under the scheme by reason of accidental death of her husband, who was a farmer. He draws attention to order dated 6th September, 2018 made by co-ordinate Bench on her earlier Writ- C no. 29466 of 2018. Reproduced below are two paragraphs from said order. "The claim of the petitioner for compensation under the Krishi Beema Yojana has been rejected by the District Level Committee headed by the District Magistrate, Mathura vide order dated 18.01.2018/24.01.2018 on the ground that the deceased had died by consuming a poison and that it was not an accidental death covered under the scheme. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the viscera report proves otherwise. Be that as it may be, the aforesaid order is appellable before the State Level Committee in accordance with clause 16 of the aforesaid scheme." He seeks direction upon the authorities for disbursing the compensation to his client. 2. Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State and submits, the claim had been initially rejected by the District Level Committee headed by the District Magistrate. On reference to the State Level Committee pursuant to direction by said order dated 6th September, 2018, the claim stands restored to the District Level Committee. He submits further, the claim must be decided by the State Level Committee. It could not have been relegated to the District Magistrate. 3. Petitioner's claim was rejected and thereafter, on reference to the higher authority, restored to respondent no.3 for reconsideration. So far as contention of State regarding relegation is concerned, petitioner has not challenged it. In his petition State cannot do so. Effect is, said respondent must consider the claim on aspects other than earlier ground(s) of rejection. This be done and decision taken informed to petitioner within four weeks from communication of certified copy of this order. 4. The writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Mohini (Arindam Sinha, J.) (Avnish Saxena, J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHINI RAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad