Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136822-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25954 of 2025 Petitioner :- Pramila Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. Heard Shri Rakesh Chandra, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of her claim under Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna by the District Level Committee on the ground that the death of her husband took place on 20.05.2022 but the claim was filed on the 92nd day i.e., 20.08.2022. 3. Under the original scheme, the time prescribed for filing the claim was thirty days from the date of death or accident. Subsequently, by Government Order dated 14.03.2023, the aforesaid period was enhanced to three months extendable by further three months, in case, there was some exceptional reason. The said factual position has not been disputed by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in Gautam Yadav vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others, (2020) 11 ADJ 321, a Division Bench of this court held the limitation provided under the aforesaid Government Orders to be unreasonable and arbitrary and further held that the limitation should be three years. He submits that under the same scheme, another Writ-C No.19071 of 2020 was decided by this court vide order dated 22.09.2021 holding the period of limitation to be illegal and arbitrary. The said order of the writ court was challenged by the Insurance Company by filing Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.3978 of 2022 and the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court holding that the limitation so prescribed is contrary to the provisions of Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. For ease of reference, the relevant part of the order of the Supreme Court is extracted hereinbelow: "The sole arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the claim was not filed within a period of one month or extending condonable period of one month. We do not find any merit in the said arguments in view of Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (for short, the Act) which reads as under:- 28. Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, void. [Every agreement, (a) by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights; or (b) which extinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto, from any liability, under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of a specified period so as to restrict any party from enforcing his rights, is void to the extent.] In view of the aforesaid Section, the condition of lodging claim within a period of one month, extendable by another one month is contrary to Section 28 of the Act and thus void. In view of the said fact, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that following the said judgement, another Division Bench in Writ-C No.29068 of 2023 (Shanti Devi vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others) has held the order rejecting the claim as barred by limitation to be illegal and the matter was remitted back for consideration of the claim of the petitioner of that case. 6. Shri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid submissions. He has also not placed before us any decision taking a contrary view. 7. Consequently, we quash the impugned order of the District Level Committee insofar as it relates to the petitioner and direct respondent no.2 to ensure that appropriate decision is taken in respect of the claim of the petitioner on merits within eight weeks from the date of communication of the instant order. 8. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Ankit. Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad