The Allahabad High Court recently reprimanded the authorities of Government of Uttar Pradesh for denying ex‑gratia compensation to a minor orphan whose parents had died in a railway accident — even though the Government of India had already verified the claim and disbursed its share of the relief. The case before the court involved a petition by a minor (the orphan) seeking release of the ex‑gratia payment that had been announced for dependents of victims of the accident. The Centre had offered to pay ₹5 lakhs to dependents of those killed in railway accidents, and the state’s Chief Minister had made a similar announcement.
During proceedings, the Union government filed a counter‑affidavit confirming that it had already processed and released the ex‑gratia payment in favour of the minor based on its verification. However, the state authorities refused to release the amount, citing a purported “lack of proof” that the accident had occurred as alleged. The Bench, comprising Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi, sharply rejected this stance. The Court observed that when the Central Government had accepted the documentation and made the payment, the same documents ought to have sufficed for the State Government to disburse the amount. The refusal to do so, the Court said, amounted to a “mockery of policy” — an unacceptable affront to both the scheme of relief and the victim’s right to compensation.
The Court directed that the District Magistrate responsible for implementing the order must disburse the dues as per the ex‑gratia announcement, relying on the Central Government’s verification. The Court asked the State’s counsel to accept a copy of the Union’s counter‑affidavit in open court to avoid further delay. It required the District Magistrate to file a compliance affidavit by the next scheduled hearing, warning that failure to comply would require personal presence in Court. The matter was listed for further hearing on a fixed date.
This ruling underscores that once a claim under a government ex‑gratia scheme is accepted and discharged by the Union, the State has no legitimate ground to refuse payment. The Court emphasised that administrative authorities must act responsibly and cannot demand separate or redundant proof where the Central Government’s verification already stands. The decision reflects the High Court’s insistence that relief schemes must serve their purpose, especially where vulnerable individuals such as orphans seek assistance after fatal accidents.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.