Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the bench of Ajit Kumar and Swarupama Chaturvedi, JJ*., held the petitioner entitled to ex gratia compensation of Rs 4,00,000 for the death of his wife due to snake bite and directed the District Magistrate to grant compensation within six weeks.. The court observed that the failure to consider contemporaneous evidence and giving undue weightage to hyper technical reasons is against the principles law.
Background
The petitioner’s wife, Smt. Raj Kumari, died on 23 August 2019 due to snake bite while working in an agricultural field. Following the incident an inquest report was prepared and the statements of the witnesses was recorded confirming the incident. However, the postmortem report did not conclude the cause of death as such and recorded that the cause of death could not be ascertained.
The petitioner applied for the ex gratia payment. According to the procedure, site inspection was conducted and a report was submitted by the Lekhpal to Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Konch ascertaining the statements of the eyewitneses. Referring to the Lekhpal’s report and the postmortem report Sub-Divisional Magistrate rejected the claim of the petitioner twice on the reason that the case did not get covered under government notifications and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to ex gratia payment. It concluded that postmortem report did not record the reason for death as snake bite, whereas the report, in fact, stated that the cause of death could not be ascertained. Since the death had occurred before 08.07.2021, due to snake bite would not be covered under this notification.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the High Court and argued that beneficial schemes must be liberally construed, and clarificatory notifications operate retrospectively.
Issues
-
Whether the subsequent government order dated 08.07.2021 is clarificatory in nature and can therefore be relied upon to interpret the Government Notification dated 02-08-2018 for deaths occurring prior to 08-07-2021?
-
Whether the absence of a conclusive opinion regarding the cause of death in the postmortem report negates the claim of the petitioner?
Court’s Findings and Analysis
On the bare reading of the Government Order dated 8 July 2021, the Court noted that bare reading of the order demonstrates that it is clarificatory in nature and intended to reinforce the objective of the notification dated 2 August 2018, rather than creating any new policy.
The court emphasised that the subsequent legislation or policy can be referred to as an external aid to understand an earlier provision, particularly when the later measure is beneficial, clarificatory, or declaratory in nature and not creating any new right. It is also a well settled principle that statements, reports, and records created at or near the time of an event carries a considerable weight in determining facts, particularly when there is no conclusive evidence. The Court noted that the postmortem report, though inconclusive, did not contradict these records, therefore, after applying the principle of contemporanea expositio, the consistent official records indicated that they were reliable evidence in determining the cause of death, and the authorities were bound to give due weight to such contemporaneous material while adjudicating claims under a beneficial policy. The Court noted that failure to consider contemporaneous evidence and giving undue weightage to hyper technical reasons like inconclusive postmortem is against well-recognized legal principles.
The Court, hence, held that the petitioner’s claim very much fell within the ambit of the policy framework, and the authorities ought to have considered it on that basis.
The court, hence, quashed the impugned order and held that the petitioner was entitled to ex gratia compensation under the Notification dated 2 August 2018 read with the clarificatory Order dated 8 July 2021.
The court further directed the District Magistrate to consider the petitioner’s claim afresh in accordance with the policy, without raising technical objections regarding the inconclusive postmortem report or unavailability of viscera report and to pass the order within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
[Kishori Lal v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 546, decided on 27-2-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Shashi Kumar Mishra
For the Respondent: C.S.C.
