URMILABEN KANUBHAI RANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr Krunal Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of Rule for the respondents. At the request of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) The petitioner is a destitute woman who has applied for the benefit of the scheme known as Widow/Deserted/Destitute Woman Benefit Scheme where under she is entitled to receive the amount of Rs.660 as financial assistance to enable her to maintain herself and the children. It is the say of the petitioner that she got married in the year 1985 and bore two children to her husband, but, later on, she was driven out of the house by her husband and since then she has been staying alone with her children. It is her say that she did not have any means of livelihood and therefore when she learnt about the scheme she applied for the benefit by submitting the application on 28th May 2003, which was received by the authority on the same day. However, the petitioner came to know about grant of her application and the benefit under the said Scheme only when she received the intimation vide letter dated 22nd March 2006. By the said letter she was called upon to open WFA account in the nearby post office by complying with certain requirements. She complied with the direction and opened the account on 29th March 2006. However, till this date she has not received any financial assistance and therefore she has approached this Court to make the grievance about it and also to obtain appropriate relief in that behalf.

(3.) I have heard Ms Sailaja for the petitioner and Mr Krunal Pandya for the respondents. The respondents have resisted the petition by filing affidavit-in-reply. It is the say of the respondents that the Scheme has been discontinued with effect from August 2003. It is further stated that though the application of the petitioner was sanctioned on 31st May 2003 due to paucity of staff the intimation could not be given to her in time and she was intimated only by letter dated 23rd March 2006. It is also the say of the respondents that since the petitioner had not complied with the requirement of the Scheme by opening the account in the nearest post office no benefit has been given to her. It is the submission of Ms Sailaja that the averments of the respondents are not true. The petitioner immediately upon receiving the intimation within three days has opened the account and that cannot be the reason for withholding the benefit from her. She has further submitted that when the application of the petitioner was sanctioned way back on 31st May 2003 there was no reason for the respondents to deprive the petitioner of the benefit for almost three years. She has, therefore, submitted that even for three months the benefit has to be given to the petitioner and that too with interest. Mr Pandya has, however, submitted that since there was no compliance of the requirement of opening the account in the post office, there was no fault on the part of the respondents in withholding the benefit from the petitioner.