HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 37483 of 2026 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J. 1. Heard Shri Janardan Prasad Patel, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.05.2026, by which the claim of the petitioner under the Mukhya Mantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Scheme') has been rejected on the basis that the husband of the petitioner was a government employee; and as such is not covered under the definition of "farmer" as provided under the Scheme. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner's husband died in an accident on 05.03.2025; and a prompt FIR to the said effect was already registered on 06.03.2025, as Case Crime No. 0058 of 2025 under Sections 281, 106, 324(4) of BNS, 2023, and thereafter the postmortem report and other documents were also submitted, along with the claim under the Scheme before the respondent No. 2, however, without considering the claim of the petitioner on merits, the authority has rejected it on the ground that the petitioner was a government employee. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Janardan Prasad Patel Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Pushpa Devi .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) copy of the Khatauni has also been appended which clearly demonstrates that Gata No. 275 admeasuring 0.1420 hectares, has been registered in the name of the petitioner's husband, as a co-sharer; and as such the impugned rejection without considering the said ground and also the fact that the petitioner comes within the definition of "farmer" as provided under the Government Order dated 28.02.2020, is absolutely erroneous. 5. 5. A further reliance has been placed on a Government Order dated 12.10.2022, wherein the eligibility as provided under the Government Order dated 28.02.2020 has been clarified; to state that the dependents or the legal heirs of any agriculturist, on the date of the death of the said employee, being in the employment of the Government of India or the State Government, shall be entitled for the financial assistance under the Scheme; however, if the said employee being registered under the Pradhan Mantri Jeewan Jyoti Beema Yojana or Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Beema Yojana, the benefit so granted under the same Scheme, shall be deducted; and only the balance amount shall be paid under the Scheme, which the dependents or the legal heirs may be entitled. 6. Placing reliance on the aforesaid Government Order dated 12.10.2022, it has been contended that in view of the aforesaid, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of the Scheme of 2020, merely on the ground that the petitioner's husband was a government employee; and such consideration not being accorded, by the respondent No.2, the impugned order is liable to be vitiated on this ground alone. 7. It is further submitted that once the evidence by way of Khatauni regarding the agricultural land, in the name of the deceased employee was available before the respondent No.2, the same could not have been ignored and the rejection merely on the ground that the deceased husband of the petitioner was a government employee is patently illegal; and her claim ought to have been considered under the Scheme of 2020; but the WRIC No. 37483 of 2026 2 concerned authorities without any application of mind and according due consideration to the claim of the petitioner, in violation of the principles of natural justice, has rejected the claim of the petitioner and the petitioner being a poor lady and her husband being the only breadwinner of the family, is suffering from grave financial crisis. 8. 8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the intent of the Scheme was to provide financial assistance to the dependents and legal heirs of the deceased farmer and since the husband of the petitioner was a government employee, he not being covered under the definition of "farmer", there is no infirmity in the rejection of the claim raised by the petitioner; but he could not dispute the fact that the Government Order dated 12.10.2022 while clarifying the eligibility under the Government Order dated 28.02.2020, with reference to the definition of farmer, further clarifies that even the dependents / legal heirs of the deceased government employee, shall be entitled to the benefit, and the only embargo is that in case the said employee is also entitled to other benefits accruing under the Pradhan Mantri Jeewan Jyoti Beema Yojana or Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Beema Yojana, the benefit under the Scheme shall be payable, only to the extent of the balance, which remains after the deduction of the financial assistance being availed under the Pradhan Mantri Jeewan Jyoti Beema Yojana or Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Beema Yojana. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that once the deceased employee is covered under the definition of "farmer" as contemplated under the Government Order dated 28.02.2020, since it is also not being disputed that an agricultural land is registered in his name, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner, cannot be sustained. 10. The rejection of the claim of the petitioner, merely on the ground that the petitioner's husband was a government employee, also cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and as WRIC No. 37483 of 2026 3 such the impugned order dated 31.05.2026 is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside; with a direction to the respondent No. 2 to consider the claim of the petitioner under the Scheme, 2020 having due regard to the Government Order dated 12.10.2022; and in case any further corroborative material is required for consideration of the claim of the petitioner, it shall be incumbent upon the respondent No. 2 to give an opportunity to the petitioner to bring on record the said evidence; and with due adherence to the principles of natural justice, it is expected that respondent No. 2 shall be deciding the claim of the petitioner afresh as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid observations / direction, the writ petition stands allowed. September 18, 2026 S.Prakash WRIC No. 37483 of 2026 4 (Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad