JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari, J.—By way of present writ petition the petitioner has claimed for relief in the nature of writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.9.2006 (annexure 8 to the writ petition) passed by District Magistrate Firozabad respondent No. 2 and further a mandate to respondent No. 2 to ensure payment of insured amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest as per scheme of the Government for which the petitioner is entitled. 2. In short, the contention of the petitioner is that her husband who was a villager and died on 3.2.2005 in road accident was entitled under the scheme of Kishan Accident Scheme to get compensation. The petitioner after obtaining death certificate on 17.3.2005 applied for compensation under the aforesaid scheme within the prescribed time. The application was duly moved within the stipulated time after the death. Despite the direction of the State Government to implement the insurance policy scheme to all the farmers who died in an unnatural manner in between the period from 16th September, 2004 to 16th September, 2005 and the case of the petitioner was fully covered within the stipulated period. The petitioner filed writ petition No. 41950 of 2006 in which the Hon’ble Court disposed of the petition directing the respondents to decide the petitioner’s claim within a period of one month. The District Magistrate vide order dated 21.9.2006 rejected the claim of the petitioner in an illegal and arbitrary manner contending that the authority had not forwarded the papers or documents of the petitioner within time to respondent No. 5 and hence the insurance company has already rejected the claim of the petitioner on 19.7.2005. It is also directed that due to fault of authorities disciplinary action is being taken against the defaulting officials. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. A perusal of Annexure 8 on record shows that the death had taken place in a road accident and that the information shall be given to the local lekhpal by the heirs of the deceased farmer and in case the heirs are illiterate, even oral information shall be entertained which shall be written down by the Lekhpal and he will forward the same to the Sub Divisional Magistrate alongwith all the required certificates and copies of the documents. The entire proceedings shall be completed within 90 days and thereupon the stipulated amount shall be paid to the heirs of the farmer. 5. The order shows that the death had taken place in the present case on 3.2.2005. The application alongwith report was forwarded in the office of the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 18.5.2005 by the Lekhpal. The said report alongwith other relevant papers were returned back on 20.5.2005 which was again forwarded by the Tehsildar concerned on 14.7.2005 to the concerned insurance company and the insurance company rejected the same on the ground of being forwarded beyond the prescribed time. 6. Apparently, the application was forwarded to the insurance company and that was done after the stipulated period prescribed but this delay was not occasioned by any act of the petitioner. It was apparently due to the delaying and indifferent attitude of the concerned Government officials. That the application alongwith report and recommendation was forwarded beyond the prescribed time. The District Magistrate has mentioned in his order that necessary legal action against the defaulting Lekhpal and Kanoongo is being taken and on coming to the conclusion that since the application and the report has become time barred, hence the application of the applicant dated 23.8.2006 is accordingly rejected. 7. No counter-affidavit has been filed despite the lapse of sufficient time and no prayer has been put forward for grant of time to file counter-affidavit. 8. Learned counsel for the State conceded the facts and further argued that necessary action is being taken against the defaulting officials. 9. Question to be determined in the present case is whether it will be sufficient to take legal action against the defaulting officials in the present matter and to reject the claim of the petitioner on the ground of its being not forwarded by the concerned officials within the prescribed time. Taking of action against the defaulting officials may act as a deterrent for future default but depriving of the benefit to the poor heir of a deceased farmer for a benefit for which she was entitled under the Government sanctioned scheme will be denial of justice and of her right to get the amount which otherwise she was entitled to get in case her claim might have been put forward within the prescribed time before the insurance company. The common man or his heirs cannot be allowed to suffer at the hands of defaulting Government officials and it will be denial of natural justice to get their claims rejected simpliciter for the delay caused by defaulting Government officials. 10. In the circumstances, it is directed that besides taking stringent action against the defaulting officials, respondent No. 2 is directed to ensure payment of the insured amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the petitioner as well as to pay interest after a period of six months calculated from the date of death of the farmer at the rate of 7% per annum till actual payment. Respondent No. 2 is further directed to ensure that all the amount including interest as directed above be paid to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of this order. ————