JUDGMENT : RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. 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. 2. Notice of motion was issued and in compliance thereof written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. 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. 5. Claiming himself to be eligible and entitled for the compensation under the above said Scheme, petitioner applied before the competent authority along with 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 above said 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. 6. Dissatisfied, petitioner filed his appeal before the appellate authority-respondent No.2 under the provisions contained in para 8 of the Scheme. 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. 6. 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 above said 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). 7. Before proceeding further on the merits of the case, the above said wholly arbitrary and unhealthy practice adopted by the respondent authorities is liable to be deprecated. It goes without saying that the administrative authorities are under legal obligation to record cogent reasons in support of their orders, while deciding valuable rights of the citizens. Further, it does not appeal to reason as to why copy of actual order passed by the competent authority is not being supplied to the claimants appellants. 8. A bare reading of both the impugned communications Annexures P-2 and P-4 would show that petitioner was not supplied actual copy of the orders either passed by respondent No.3 or the appellate order passed by respondent No.2, for the reasons best known to the authorities concerned. Petitioner has been just informed on behalf of respondent No.3 that his claim has been rejected only on account of delay. Again, petitioner was informed on behalf of the appellate authority-respondent No.2 only to this extent that decision taken by respondent No.3 was approved by way of impugned communication Annexure P-4, which has been found totally non speaking and cryptic. 9. The respondent authorities have not placed on record true copies of either of the impugned orders passed by respondents Nos.2 and 3, even with their written statement, except to take the stand that petitioner filed his application for claiming monetary benefit under the Scheme beyond a period of six months because of which it was rejected. 9. The respondent authorities have not placed on record true copies of either of the impugned orders passed by respondents Nos.2 and 3, even with their written statement, except to take the stand that petitioner filed his application for claiming monetary benefit under the Scheme beyond a period of six months because of which it was rejected. Had the respondent authorities supplied actual copies of the orders either to the petitioner or would have placed the same on record along with their written statement, this Court would have been in a position to peruse as to what were the actual orders passed and what were the reasons which weighed with the respondent authorities, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 10. In fact, this practice adopted by the respondent authorities while not supplying copies of the actual orders and in place thereof, only a communication about the order, is totally uncalled for practice which does not appeal to reason at all and cannot stand judicial scrutiny under any circumstances. 11. The above said Scheme is a beneficial and welfare Scheme. Relevant part of the Scheme which also contains its Aim and Objective, reads as under:- “.....The Scheme shall be called "Rajiv Gandhi Pariwar Bima Yojana" and shall be applicable throughout the State of Haryana. This scheme is completely free and no premium or consideration of any kind is collected from the eligible beneficiaries. AIM AND OBJECTIVE A lot of people die or get permanently disabled due to various accidents like rail/road accidents, fires, drowning, snake bites, electrocution and farming equipment or even unnatural causes like murder. poisoning etc. This results in not only suffering to the bereaved dependents on account of the loss of life but heavy financial burden to the affected family. As on date, there is no or very little compensation available to the bereaved family following death/permanent disablement of the domicile of Haryana in case of road/rail accident. Dependent of the deceased can approach Motor Accident Claims Tribunals for relief but such processes take a lot of time in getting compensation through Motor Accident Claims Tribunals. It also involves a lot of paperwork. proceedings in the court and several witnesses to finalize the case resulting in delay. In this way. relevance of the compensation is more or less diminished. This creates an urgent need for financial support. It also involves a lot of paperwork. proceedings in the court and several witnesses to finalize the case resulting in delay. In this way. relevance of the compensation is more or less diminished. This creates an urgent need for financial support. which in fact is proposed to be provided by this scheme in the form of compensation to the bereaved family as per details below in order to address their immediate financial requirements. 12. As per contents of para 3 of the Scheme, financial benefit is admissible to the extent of Rs. 1 lac in case of death or permanent total disability, Rs. 50,000/- in the case of loss of two limbs or both eyes or one limb and one eye and Rs. 25,000/- in the case of loss of one eye or one limb. As per note 2 given at the end of para 5 of the Scheme, no claim will be entertained, if lodged after six months of death or accident, as the case may be. 13. Para 1 of the Scheme deals with eligibility of the beneficiaries and para 2 deals with the scope of disability due to accident, like rail/road/air accident, riot, strike, terrorism, snake bite, drowning, poisoning, murder, burnt injuries and many other identical events and incidents. Para 4 of the Scheme has provided the procedure to be followed whereas para 5 deals with the documents to be submitted in support of the claim. Para 6 to 8 of the Scheme deal with information, rejection of claim and appeal, which read as under:- 6. INFORMA TION The District Social Welfare Officer and Sub- Divisional Officer (Civil) shall maintain a register in the prescribed format and shall dispose of the cases strictly on first-come-first- serve basis and a monthly report in this regard shall be submitted to the Directorate of Social Justice and Empowerment. Haryana. 7. REJECTION OF CLAIM No application shall be rejected either by the District Social Welfare Officer or the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) at their level and all such application shall be decided by the Deputy Commissioner of the district concerned whose decision shall be final. 8. APPEAL If aggrieved by the decision of Deputy Commissioner. the claimant or beneficiary can file an appeal before the Director. Social Justice & Empowerment. Haryana within one month. 14. 8. APPEAL If aggrieved by the decision of Deputy Commissioner. the claimant or beneficiary can file an appeal before the Director. Social Justice & Empowerment. Haryana within one month. 14. A bare combined reading of the above said provisions of the Scheme would show that it is a Welfare and beneficiary Scheme, rightly formulated by the State of Haryana and it deserves all appreciation at the hands of this Court. Looking to the above said aim and objective of the Scheme, respondent authorities are expected to proceed on a positive, liberal and justice oriented approach, so as to achieve the object of the Scheme. However, in practice, respondent authorities have been found proceeding on a negative approach, while declining genuine claims of the citizens on one or the other technical grounds, thereby defeating very purpose and object of this beneficial Scheme. 15. Once the State has taken a conscious decision to put in place the above said Scheme which is meant for welfare of its citizens, the functionaries of the State, including the respondent authorities, are also under legal obligation to ensure that aim and object of the Scheme is achieved and not defeated. They must keep in mind the aim and object of the Scheme, while considering the valuable rights of the citizens, who are already suffering and deserve a helping and sympathetic attitude of the authorities. Denying the genuine claims only on technical grounds, like some delay or non-fulfillment of any other immaterial formality would run counter to the very purpose of the welfare Scheme. Endeavour of all the concerned authorities must be not to defeat but to achieve the aim and object of the Scheme. 16. So far as the alleged delay is concerned, had there been a proper coordination amongst different agencies of the State, there would be no difficulty in this regard. First of all, such a welfare Scheme deserves to be brought to the notice of its beneficiaries by adopting proper means, including Print Media, so that the beneficiaries are made aware about their rights under this Scheme. First of all, such a welfare Scheme deserves to be brought to the notice of its beneficiaries by adopting proper means, including Print Media, so that the beneficiaries are made aware about their rights under this Scheme. Secondly, to resolve the issue of any alleged delay, as and when FIR is registered, as was done in the present case by registration of FIR No. 266 on the date of incident itself, i.e. 19.10.2011, said information could have been easily passed on by the concerned police station to the concerned Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) of the area, who, in turn, may initiate further process, at the level of his office. 17. Similarly, when the victim of any untoward incident including road accident, as in the instant case, reaches the hospital for medical treatment, said hospital should be made liable for passing on the information to the Sub Divisional Office (civil) of the area, so that the victim or his/her dependents in the case of death, may get immediate financial assistance for which they would be in urgent need. One of the objects of the Scheme is to address immediate financial requirement of the beneficiary of the Scheme. 18. It is so said because most of the beneficiaries of this beneficial and welfare Scheme would be innocent citizens, including widows and children who might be illiterate or semi literate and may not be aware about their rights under the Scheme. In the absence of any such workable mechanism, State will not be in a position to achieve the real object of the Scheme, which is meant for poor, needy and helpless citizens. 19. Reverting to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, neither the respondent authorities have considered and appreciated the true facts of the case, nor the object of the Scheme was kept in mind, while passing the impugned orders. Unless the petitioner was issued the above said disability certificate dated 20.11.2013 (Annexure P-1), he would not have been eligible even for applying for any compensation under the Scheme. It is a matter of record that after issuance of the disability certificate on 20.11.2013, he applied well within a period of six months and in such a situation, there was no scope of declining the most genuine claim of the petitioner on account of any technicality including that of alleged delay. It is a matter of record that after issuance of the disability certificate on 20.11.2013, he applied well within a period of six months and in such a situation, there was no scope of declining the most genuine claim of the petitioner on account of any technicality including that of alleged delay. In fact, ground of delay was not available to the respondent authorities because petitioner has put his claim well within time. Both the impugned communications Annexures P-2 and P-4 having been found suffering from patent illegality and perversity and the same cannot be upheld. 20. During the course of hearing, when a pointed question was put to the learned counsel for the State, as to how the claim of the petitioner could have been rejected on account of delay, he had no answer, except to refer to para 5 of the Scheme. However, explanation sought to be given by the learned counsel for the State has not been found satisfactory for the reason that such a fact situation, as obtaining in the present case, cannot be said to be covered against the petitioner even as per the provisions contained in para 5 of the Scheme. 21. If the genuine claims like the present one are to be rejected on such technical grounds, then the very purpose and object of the Scheme would be defeated. Having said that, this court feels no hesitation to conclude that the impugned orders are not only contrary to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, but the same are also against the basic principles of natural justice as well as contrary to the very object of the Scheme, thus, cannot be upheld for this reason also. 22. The above said view taken by this Court also finds support from a judgment of this Court in Ajmero VS. State of Haryana and others, 2014 (3) PLR 268. No other argument was raised. 23. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that since the impugned communications have been found suffering from patent illegality, the same cannot be upheld. Accordingly, impugned communications Annexures P-3 and P-4 are set aside. Issuing a writ of Certiorari, petitioner is declared entitled for financial assistance of Rs. Accordingly, impugned communications Annexures P-3 and P-4 are set aside. Issuing a writ of Certiorari, petitioner is declared entitled for financial assistance of Rs. 1 lac on account of 100% permanent disability suffered by the petitioner, as per disability certificate Annexure P-1. 24. Since the genuine claim of the petitioner has been declined in most arbitrary manner, forcing him to approach this Court, petitioner would be entitled for receiving the above said amount of Rs. 1 lac along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of his application, i.e. 13.3.2014 till actual payment thereof. The writ petition deserves to be allowed with costs, which are quantified at Rs. 30,000/-. The respondent authorities are directed to pay the total amount, including the costs, to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, petitioner shall be entitled for interest @ 12 % per annum. 25. Keeping view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case discussed hereinabove, the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, is directed to look into the matter, so as to issue appropriate instructions to ensure effective implementation of the Scheme, with a view to achieve its aim and object. Let an effective mechanism be put in place either supplementing or suitably amending the Scheme, addressing the genuine practical difficulties being faced by the beneficiaries of the Scheme, like the petitioner in the present case, which shall not only achieve the object of the Scheme but would also curb the avoidable litigation, besides saving public time and money. Let the needful be done at an early date but in any case within a period of three months. Thereafter, the Chief Secretary shall file his own affidavit alongwith action taken report. 26. Resultantly, with the above said observations made and directions issued, present writ petition stands allowed with costs, Rs. 30,000/-. 27. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, for compliance thereof. 28. List the case on 21.11.2016, for further consideration so as to ensure the compliance of the order.