Civil Writ Petition No. 20410 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 20410 of 2010 Date of decision: 28.02.2011 Seema ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Sandeep Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner is an unfortunate lady, who has lost her husband due to electrocution while doing agricultural work. He was the only bread earner for the family on which his family was fully dependent. For taking benefit of the scheme launched by the State Government in the name of late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi Pariwar Bima Yojna, the petitioner applied for compensation after completing the formalities. The petitioner has averred that she was not aware about the above scheme and, accordingly, applied for the same on 7.07.2010 when she learnt about it. The application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that this was filed beyond the period of six months from the date of death which is the time laid down for making application. The petitioner did make an effort thereafter to stake the claim but the respondents refused to accept the same. She has, accordingly filed this writ petition to challenge this action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Civil Writ Petition No. 20410 of 2010 2 As per the reply, death is not in dispute. The claim of the petitioner was forwarded to Nodal Officer, who found that the same is barred by time as the limitation for filing the claim was six months in terms of Clause 5 of the scheme known as Rajiv Gandhi Pariwar Bima Yojna. Since the petitioner had applied for after expiry of six months, the claim has been rejected being time barred. While noticing these facts, it was observed by this Court that this strict interpretation of the provision of the scheme, which is beneficial without making any provision for condoning the delay even in some genuine cases, would make the provisions look arbitrary. State counsel, accordingly, was required to have instructions if the claim of the petitioner could be considered by ignoring the delay in filing the claim. State counsel on instructions submits that the competent authority has been uniformly adopting this procedure and rejecting the claims, which are time barred and no exception can be made in the case of the petitioner. Perhaps the observation of the Court has not been correctly appreciated and considered by the respondents. Any provision, which is made for making of the payment within some time bound period, may have to be followed. However, such beneficial provision cannot be so strictly construed as to call for no exception. If that strict view is adopted, it will make the provision look arbitrary. In deserving cases, there could always be a scope of some interference by condoning the delay. Suppose a person, who is otherwise entitled to claim the relief is prevented from making an application for some valid reason, then it would be unfair on the part of the respondents to deny the claim only on the ground that it is moved with a delay. Civil Writ Petition No. 20410 of 2010 3 Similarly, the delay in some cases may be very negligible say one or two days then it would still sound unfair for the State not to entertain the claim only on the ground that it was not filed within time. There may not be any provision for condoning the delay but in my view such powers would be inherent and if the competent authority sanctions such claim even after six months of death, it cannot be termed without jurisdiction or something which is unfair. Rather closing the doors for grant of benefits of the beneficial and laudable scheme like this, would be unfair. Let us see the purpose for which this scheme has been introduced. After noticing that a lot of people in the State either die or are disabled due to variety of causes including murder or poisoning, it is observed that there is no immediate compensation available in such cases which is a cause of suffering for affected families. Realizing an urgent need of the family this scheme has made a provision for compensation. It is described as novel and innovative scheme and is meant for persons from lower strata of society as income tax payee and Government servants are excluded. Manner to claim compensation and the procedure to consider the claims is provided in the scheme. It is then mentioned as a note (ii) under paragraph 5 of the scheme that no claim will be entertained if lodged after six months of the death/accident. Scheme is a social welfare scheme meant for some needy people of the State. Should then such a note be read in a manner to nullify the entire purpose of the scheme? In my view, it should not be allowed to have such an overriding effect on the scheme aimed at Welfare measure. This Civil Writ Petition No. 20410 of 2010 4 scheme is dated 19th November, 2009 and is made effective retrospectively from 1st April, 2006. This reason, in my view is enough to observe that a period of six months time to prefer claim would be flexible and cannot be followed as prohibitory provisions to call for no exception. The provision is not of codified law statutorily framed. It is not a code which is complete in itself. It is just a note under one paragraph of one scheme which is administrative in nature and issued by executive as instruction or is an administrative instruction. In an appropriate case, where an individual is able to show a sufficient cause explaining the delay in making the approach, it would be reasonable to ignore the delay rather than closing the case for further consideration only on this ground ignoring the merits of the claim and the need of the family which may be acute. Here it may be noticed that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chinnamarkathian alias Muthu Gounder and another versus Ayyavoo alias Periana Gounder and others (1982) 1 SCC 159 has observed that jurisdiction to grant time would include, in absence of any contrary indication, jurisdiction to grant extension of time. Jurisdiction to grant time would inhere in its ambit the jurisdiction to extend time initially fixed. Perception of equity have apparently been invoked by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while so holding. When some circumstances are to be taken into account for fixing a length of time within which a certain action is to be taken, the court is held to retain to itself the jurisdiction to re-examine the alteration or modification of the circumstances which may necessitate extension of time. Let the petitioner make an application afresh before the Civil Writ Petition No. 20410 of 2010 5 Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal, explaining the reason for which she could not file this application in time. The Deputy Commissioner will consider the reasons so disclosed and pass order whether any case for condoning the delay and entertaining the claim is made out or not. It would be reasonable to observe that the Deputy Commissioner would keep in view that the scheme is dated 19th November, 2009 but is effective from 1st April, 2006 and so the scheme itself may leave some indication abut the effect of delayed claims. The Deputy Commissioner may pass any order in accordance with law. The petitioner, if feels aggrieved, may have her remedy in accordance with law. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. February 28, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE