VISHRAM SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
WRIC/36622/2026 · 2026-10-07
Indrajeet Shukla, J J Munir
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 12659 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 12659 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 36622 of 2026 Vishram Singh …..Petitioner(s) Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another …..Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : In Person Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Reserved Court No. - 2 HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. Delivered by Indrajeet Shukla, J.
1. Heard Mr. Vishram Singh, the petitioner, in person and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ray, learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner, Vishram Singh, has approached this Court with the grievance that he has not been receiving financial assistance under the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi Yojana on account of the incorrect feeding of the IFSC code of the branch of the Bank where the petitioner maintains his account. 3. The petitioner claims that he approached the second respondent, i.e., the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Kanpur Dehat, for redressal of his grievance vide application dated 08.01.2020, appended as Annexure No. 1 to this petition. The petitioner further points out that the IFSC code of the branch of his bank was wrongly entered as “BARBOPANKAN”, whereas the correct IFSC code was “BARBOPANKIX”. The said
2 WRIC No. - 36622 of 2026 mistake could not be rectified promptly, as a result of which the petitioner remained deprived of 23 installments under the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi Yojana. Respondent No. 2 filed his personal affidavit in the matter on 22.09.2026, which has been treated as a counter-affidavit for the purposes of adjudication of the instant writ petition. 4. The counter-affidavit nowhere denies the receipt of the representation submitted by the petitioner in the year 2020. However, an explanation has been put forth that, at the relevant point of time, respondent No. 2 was not holding the office in question, and as such, the grievance of the petitioner could not be redressed within the stipulated time. 5. The counter-affidavit further indicates that, in accordance with the revised guidelines issued by the Government of India, the payment mechanism under the PM-Kisan Yojna has transitioned to an Aadhaar- based Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) system. Accordingly, the payment of installments is processed through the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI)/PFMS platform on the basis of Aadhaar linkage. Under the Aadhaar-based payment mechanism, the transfer is processed through the prescribed Aadhaar-linked system rather than solely on the basis of IFSC/account details. 6.
The official PM-Kisan portal records pertaining to the petitioner’s registration No. UP148907937, Block Sandalpur, Tehsil Sikandra, District Kanpur Dehat, reflect that the petitioner’s land-seeding status was verified and marked as “Yes” on 29.08.2022. The Aadhaar-seeding status of the petitioner’s bank account was verified and marked as “Yes” on 31.12.2023. The farmer’s records stand accepted by the PFMS/Bank, as is evident from the beneficiary status/portal report appended as Annexure No. 1 to the personal affidavit. 7. The only flaw pointed out by the respondent No. 2 is that the disbursement of the installment amount was withheld on account of non- compliance with the mandatory e-KYC authentication requirement on the portal, where the petitioner’s e-KYC status is reflected as “No”. 3 WRIC No. - 36622 of 2026
8. Respondent No. 2, in his personal affidavit, has emphasized that, pursuant to the interim mandamus issued by this Court, the authorities took prompt action, whereupon the mandatory e-KYC authentication and the requisite farmer registry formalities of the petitioner were duly completed, verified, and updated on the designated portal. A copy of the e-KYC completion status has been brought on record as Annexure No. 2 to the personal affidavit of respondent No. 2. 9. Copies of the farmer registry verification/acknowledgment and the related records generated on 18.09.2026, along with the G.O. tagged photograph of the verification proceedings dated 18.09.2026, have also been brought on record by respondent No. 2 by way of his personal affidavit. 10. Respondent No. 2 further acknowledges that the e-KYC and farmer registration formalities have successfully been completed on
18.09.2026. Thus, the pending portal-related procedural requirements have admittedly been completed. The data pertaining to the petitioner was also forwarded through the PM-Kisan portal to the Government of India on 18.09.2026. It has further been stated that the next installment under the PM-Kisan Yojana is expected to be released in November
2026. It has also been clarified that the eligible arrears as well as the regular instalment would be credited to the petitioner’s bank account in November 2026. 11.
Even if it is assumed to be correct that non receipt of benefits was attributable to the pending e-KYC requirement, there is no justification with the respondent why the representation dated 08.01.2020 was not acted upon by letting the all formalities to be completed with promptitude. The petitioner herein was forced to approach this Court and suffered for almost six years without any fault of his. 12. Be that as it may, respondent no.2 is directed to ensure credit of arrears of installments and further regular credit of installments of PM- Kisan Samman Nidhi Yojna as and when it becomes due. The arrears of installments shall be paid on or before 30.11.2026. 4 WRIC No. - 36622 of 2026
13. In view of the suffering of the petitioner and the fact that, for no fault of his own, he was compelled to approach this Court, we quantify the costs at Rs. 5,000/-, which shall be paid to the petitioner along with the arrears of installments under the PM-Kisan Samman Nidhi Yojana. The arrears of installments shall further carry interest at the rate of 6% per-annum from the respective dates on which the installments became due until the date of actual payment. 14. In terms of the directions made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Costs in the sum of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the petitioner by the respondents. (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.) October 8, 2026 Mohit Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad