Chandigarh, August 26, 2025: In a significant move, the Haryana Human Rights
Commission has taken a stern stance against arbitrary rejections and delays in the Deen
Dayal Upadhyaya Antyodaya Parivar Suraksha Yojana (Dayalu) caused by clerical
errors.
While adjudicating Complaint No. 519/8/2025, the Commission observed that a claim under
the scheme was rejected solely because of a mismatch in the deceased’s age recorded in the
death certificate and the Family ID. The Commission ruled that such rejections are arbitrary
and defeat the very purpose of the welfare scheme.
The complainant had stated that the variation in age was a minor clerical mistake that had
since been corrected. Despite submitting a revised death certificate, authorities failed to
reopen and reconsider the claim.
The Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Antyodaya Parivar Suraksha Yojana is designed to provide
financial assistance to families of deceased earning members from economically weaker
sections, as per the verified Family ID. Denying benefits even after correction of official
records, the Commission said, undermines the scheme’s objective and reflects administrative
apathy.
Justice Lalit Batra, Chairperson of the Commission, observed in his order:
“Denying any eligible person the benefits of welfare schemes due to clerical errors amounts
to a violation of basic human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. As an organ of the
State, authorities are duty-bound to ensure timely delivery of welfare benefits, particularly to
the economically weaker sections.”
The Commission directed that the Chief Executive Officer of the Haryana Family Security
Trust, the Deputy Commissioner of Jind, and the Administrative Officer of the Trust submit
detailed reports explaining why the case was not reopened despite submission of corrected
documents. The reports were also required to outline the provisions for review and measures
to prevent such lapses in future.
Subsequently, reports received from the authorities confirmed that the complainant’s claim
has now been reopened, revised documents uploaded, and the case is under process.
However, Justice Batra expressed concern that earlier rejection letters merely cited
discrepancies without guiding the applicant on corrective measures. He emphasized the need
for reasoned (speaking) orders that clearly state the grounds for rejection and provide the
applicant with options for rectification.
Dr. Puneet Arora, Protocol, Information & Public Relations Officer, informed that The
Commission strongly recommended the following systemic reforms:
Reopen claims upon submission of corrected documents without subjecting applicants
to a fresh process.
Establish a clear correction mechanism, allowing applicants to reactivate claims
through a simple application and revised documents.
Set up district-level grievance redressal cells comprising representatives from the
Social Welfare Department and the Birth & Death Registrar.
Ensure that grievance cells record complaints, provide guidance, and deliver time-
bound solutions.
Launch public awareness campaigns and display scheme-related information at key
public locations.
Justice Batra concluded: “Clerical errors cannot become a ground to deprive eligible
beneficiaries of welfare rights. Transparency and reasoned orders are the backbone of
welfare governance.”
