- (1.) Feeling aggrieved against the impugned communication dated 26.2.2015 (Annexure P-4), whereby impugned order dated 23.8.2014 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.3 was upheld, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for financial assistance under the Rajiv Gandhi Pariwar Bima Yojana ('the Scheme' for short), petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order. He also seeks a writ in the nature of Mandamus for directing the respondent authorities to accept the claim of the petitioner and pay him due amount under Scheme. Notice of motion was issued and in compliance thereof written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Facts are hardly in dispute. Petitioner suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident on 19.10.2011. FIR No. 266 was registered on 19.10.2011 itself under Sections 279/304-A IPC at Police Station Israna. It is the pleaded case on behalf of the petitioner that he remained hospitalised in civil hospital Panipat as well as in a private hospital and thereafter, he remained admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak. Petitioner kept on getting medical treatment with the hope that he would get completely recovered. Had the petitioner been completely recovered, he would not have been eligible to claim any financial assistance under the Scheme. However, petitioner could not recover and unfortunately, he was declared 100% disabled, vide disability certificate dated 20.11.2013 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Medical Board at civil hospital Panipat.
(3.) Claiming himself to be eligible and entitled for the compensation under the abovesaid Scheme, petitioner applied before the competent authority alongwith relevant documents on 13.3.2014, which was well within a period of six months from the date of issuance of the medical certificate dated 20.11.2013 (Annexure P-1). However, without appreciating the abovesaid undisputed fact situation, genuine claim of the petitioner was declined by respondent No.3 only on account of delay. Accordingly, petitioner was informed vide impugned communication dated 23.8.2014 (Annexure P-2). In fact, actual order passed by the competent authority was not even supplied to the petitioner. Dissatisfied, petitioner filed his appeal before the appellate authority-respondent No.2 under the provisions contained in para 8 of the Scheme. The appellate authority also miserably failed to appreciate the abovesaid factual as well as legal aspect of the matter, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. Accordingly, without supplying copy of the order passed by the appellate authority, petitioner was just informed about rejection of his appeal and that too, by way of a totally non-speaking and cryptic communication dated 26.2.2015 (Annexure P-4).;