Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Division Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi, held that the death of a person due to snake bite entitles the deceased's dependents to ex-gratia relief under the State Disaster Response Fund. The Court found that the Government notification dated 02.08.2018 recognizes snake bite deaths as a State-specific disaster, and that a subsequent clarificatory order cannot be used to deny relief on technical grounds such as an inconclusive postmortem report or the absence of a viscera examination report.

The writ petition was filed seeking a mandamus directing the competent authority to grant ex gratia compensation of ₹4,00,000 under the Government notification dated 02.08.2018 and the Government order dated 08.07.2021. The petitioner claimed that his wife died on 23.08.2019 due to a snakebite while working in an agricultural field. A General Diary entry recorded the death as caused by a snakebite, and an inquest report along with witness statements also indicated the same. A postmortem examination was conducted; however, the report stated that the cause of death could not be ascertained and the viscera was preserved for examination.

Also Read: Creamy Layer Status Cannot Be Determined Solely On Parental Salary Income Without Reference To Post And Status: Supreme Court

The petitioner applied for ex gratia assistance, asserting that the death fell within the Government notification declaring snakebite as a State-notified disaster. During the administrative inquiry, the Lekhpal conducted a site inspection and recorded statements of villagers who confirmed that the death occurred due to a snakebite. Despite these records, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate rejected the claim on the ground that the postmortem report did not conclusively record snakebite as the cause of death. The claim was again rejected through a subsequent order referring to the same reports and noting that the death had occurred prior to the Government order dated 08.07.2021. The petitioner challenged these administrative decisions, contending that consistent official records supported the cause of death as snakebite and that denial of compensation was unjustified.

The Court examined the purpose and scope of the State notifications providing ex gratia assistance and recorded that “the underlying objective of the State is to extend timely support to families who have lost family member due to the circumstances contemplated therein.” It further recorded that “the scheme is in the nature of a welfare measure intended to provide relief to persons in need.”

While examining the interpretation of subsequent government instructions, the Court stated that “subsequent instructions, circulars, or notifications can be used as clarificatory aids in interpreting an earlier policy, particularly where the earlier policy is beneficial in nature.” It further recorded that “beneficial schemes or policies of the State are required to be construed purposively and liberally to advance their intended objective, and not to be seen in a hyper-technical or restrictive manner.”

On the evidentiary value of contemporaneous records, the Court observed 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.” It noted that “the General Diary entry, the inquest report, and the statements of witnesses recorded by the Tehsildar and other officials immediately following the death of the petitioner’s wife constitute contemporaneous records, consistently stating that the death occurred due to snake bite.”

The Court recorded that “the postmortem report, though inconclusive, does not contradict these records.” It further stated that “the authorities are bound to give due weight to such contemporaneous material while adjudicating claims under a beneficial policy.” The Court added that “failure to consider contemporaneous evidence and giving undue weightage to hyper-technical reasons like inconclusive postmortem is against well-recognized legal principles.”

Considering the clarificatory order dated 08.07.2021, the Court stated that “it merely clarifies as to how claims arising from snake bite deaths should be considered under the earlier policy to make the beneficiaries get compensation without delay.” It further recorded that “it does not impose any new limitation, nor does it affect deaths that occurred prior to its issuance.”

The Court ultimately noted 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.”

Also Read: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Entertain Writ Petition Against AIIMS Raebareli Recruitment Advertisement, Directs Petitioners To Approach Central Administrative Tribunal

The Court directed that “the impugned rejection of the claim on technical grounds cannot be sustained. The order dated 02.08.2018 and 08.07.2021 are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the District Magistrate, Jalaun, with a direction 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.”

“The District Magistrate, Jalaun is directed to accord benefit of compensation to the petitioner for untimely death of the deceased due to snake bite. The District Magistrate shall pass the order within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Shri Shashi Kumar Mishra, Advocate

For the Respondents: Ms. Shruti Malviya, Brief Holder for the State

Case Title: Kishori Lal v. State of U.P. and Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: AHC:45128-DB
Case Number: Writ – C No. 2130 of 2026
Bench: Justice Ajit Kumar, Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi