JUDGMENT 1. - Smt. Raj Kanwar petitioner who is widow of Shri Gopal Singh, Police Constable Belt No. 1142 of Ajmer Police (respondent No. 2) serving w.e.f. 5.3.1975, has filed this writ petition claiming (1) benevolent benefit as an ex-gratia grant/amount under Rule 268-HH of Rajasthan Civil Service Rules, 1951 (for short, "R.S.R."), and (2) amount of claim under the Group Insurance Policy as provided to the police personnel by circular dated 20.1.1992 (Annexure 6). 2. Admittedly, as per Rojnamcha (Annexure 2) Gopal Singh who reported on duly on 9.4.1996 at 6 A.M. left for JLN Hospital, Ajmer for enquiry in Case No. 64/93 and thereafter reported back at the police station at 1.00 P.M. Then he along with the SHO left at 3.30 P.M. for the Court of ACJM and returned therefrom at 4.30 P.M. along with the accused in Case No. 64/93. Thereafter, again the SHO took Gopal Singh for duty at 6.15 P.M. and left for search of other co-accused in that case and also for patrolling the area at 2.00 A.M. in the night intervening 9th and 10th April, 1993. Immediately upon return from discharge of official duties, to his residence, Gopal Singh complained of chest pain, whereupon a doctor was called and after having clinically examined, the doctor declared him dead giving cause of death as serve cardiac arrest vide Certificate dated 10.4.1993 (Annexure 3). 3. Undisputedly, Gopal Singh Police Constable No. 1142 was appointed under the orders of Supdt. of Police, Ajmer (respondent No. 2) on 5.3.1975 and continued to serve the police department till his death on 10.4.1993 without any complaint whatsoever. After death of Gopal Singh, his wife Raj Kanwar (petitioner) was undisputedly granted family pension vide FPPO No. 101680(R) dated 24.7.1993 (Annexure 4). 4. The petitioner submitted her affidavit on 10.7.1997 stating therein that (1) her husband Gopal Singh was drawing basic pay of Rs. 440/- and he became entitled to selection grade from 25.1.1992 as per order dated 21.10.1993 passed after his death as a result of which, his basic pay would have been at Rs. 1680/- entitling him to ex-gratia grant of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 268- HH(1) of the RSR; (2) that as per personal accident insurance assured by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., her husband was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1680/- entitling him to ex-gratia grant of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 268- HH(1) of the RSR; (2) that as per personal accident insurance assured by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., her husband was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-; (3) that as per personal accident insurance assured with United India Insurance Company Limited under Policy No. 140302/42/03/210/92 her husband was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- also. Again, by an additional affidavit dated 24.4.1998 given by the petitioner in pursuance of the direction under Order dated 17.4.1998 of this Court, she furnished policy numbers, as follows - (1) Oriental Insurance Policy No. 241/07/42/93/ 00004; (2) United Insurance Policy No. 140302/42/03/210/92 and she further stated that under these two polices, he husband was insured for an amount of Rs. One lac each. These two affidavits have not been controverted by producing any evidence by the respondents in rebuttal. 5. Undisputedly, as is borne out form Circular dated 20.1.1992 (Annexure 6), the State Government promulgated a Group Insurance Policy for police personnel and for financial year 1991-92, a sum of Rs. 13,50,353/- was paid to the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and as per this insurance scheme, in case a constable died during the course of employment or in an accident while discharging his duties, the police personnel's family is entitled to a sum of Rs. One lac. As per circulars dated 3.7.1985, 13.7.1988, 26.5.1989 and 21.12.1993 (Annexure 5), the case of the benevolent grant should be decided finally within a period of one year of the date of death of police personnel. 6. In compliance with aforesaid circular and as per Rules brother of Gopal Singh sent a representation dated 30.4.1993 (Annexure 7) claiming therein that since Gopal Singh had over-worked on 9.4.1993 right from 6.00 A.M. to 2.00 P.M. (night), the cause of his death was diagnosed as severe cardiac arrest as a result of discharge of official duties over about 14 hours in a day and hence the petitioner was entitled for the benefit of Group Insurance Policy and benevolent fund under Rule 268-HH of RSR 1951. upon the receipt of representation (Annexure 7), Asstt. upon the receipt of representation (Annexure 7), Asstt. Accounts Officer of the Director General of Police Rajasthan, Jaipur vide letter (Annexure 8) called for the case of Gopal Singh for the grant of Group Insurance and benevolent fund and thereafter kept the same pending without communicating any result thereof to the family of deceased-Gopal Singh. Since no heed was given to the representation (Annexure 7), a legal notice (Annexure 9) for demand of justice was sent on 19.10.1993 in this regard. Consequently, this writ petition has been filed. 7. In reply to the show cause notice to this writ petition the respondents have contended inter alia that the provisions of Rule 268-HH of the RSR are not attracted to this case since petitioner's husband did not die while on duty as the fact remained that his duty was over on the fateful day i.e. 9.4.1993 at 8.00 P.M. and petitioner's husband died at 2 O'clock in the night so it cannot be said that his death had taken place as a result of stress or strain on account of over-working while in discharge of his official duty on that day. 8. The respondents have not disputed that on the date of death of Gopal Singh he had served strenuously having over-worked beyond his duty hours right from 6.00 A.M. to 8.00 P.M. and even therafter he was summoned back by his immediate superior in the office on the same day itself firstly at 1.00 P.M., then at 3.30 P.M. and thereafter at 4.30 P.M., 6.15 P.M. and ultimately for patrolling duty in the night, wherefrom he returned on or about 2.20 A.M. mid-night on 10.4.96. Therefore, he discharged his duties not only strenuously but also continuously whenever called. 9. The only question which requires consideration is as to whether death of police employee Gopal Singh (husband of the petitioner) can be considered and held to be due to accident resulting from circumstances of continuously and strenuously over-working on the fateful day on 9th/10th April, 1993 right from 6.00 A.M. to 2.00 A.M., till his return from patrolling duty to the Police Station resulting in a severe cardiac arrest, and thereby whether his widow, the petitioner, is entitled to benevolent ex-gratia admissible under Rule 268-HH of RSR besides amounts under Group Insurance policies, referred to above ? 10. Rule 268-HH of RSR reads as under - "268-HH. 10. Rule 268-HH of RSR reads as under - "268-HH. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter except as otherwise provided, an 'ex-gratia grant' shall be admissible under sub-rule (2) to the family of a Government servant who dies while on duty in one of the following circumstances - (a) outside his normal headquarter, (b) in an accident. (c) due to injury intentionally inflicted or caused in consequence of the due performance of his official duties. (d) due to injury intentionally inflicted or caused in consequence of his official position, and (e) by violence attributable to causes relative to his service. (f) while on duty, at/on headquarter or outside headquarter, in connection with special assignments like 'Election duty', 'Census work' and/or such other assignments which do to fall within normal duties of the post held. (2)(a) The amount of ex-gratia grant, when the Government servant dies under the circumstances mentioned in clause (a) of sub-rule (1) shall be as follows - Emoluments of Government Servant Amount of ex-gratia grant (i) Upto Rs. 1680/- Rs. 10,000/- (ii) Above Rs. 1680/- but below Rs. 3050/- Rs. 15,000/- (iii) Rs. 3050/- and above Rs. 20,000/- (b) the amount of ex-gratia grant, when the Government servant dies under any of the circumstances mentioned in clauses (b) to (f) of sub-rule (1) shall be as follows - Emoluments of Government Servant Amount of ex-gratia grant (i) Upto Rs. 1680/- Rs. 50,000/- (ii) Above Rs. 1680/- but below Rs. 3050/- Rs. 75,000/- (iii) Rs. 3050/- and above Rs. 1,00,000/- (Provided the amount of ex-gratia grant, when the Government servant dies while on duty, at own headquarter or outside headquarter, in connection with Election duty would be Rs. 1,00,000/- irrespective of the emoluments of the Government servant). (3) The amount of ex-gratia grant under sub-rule (2) shall be granted by the Head of Department to the member of the family who has been granted family pension under these rules after satisfying the following conditions - (i) It is clearly established on record and certified in the sanction that the death of this Government servant has taken place while on duty and this fact is not subject to any dispute. (ii) In the case of death in accident while on duty, the death has either taken place on the spot of the accident or during the course of treatment of injuries caused in such an accident prior to being declared fit by the authorised medical attendant for resumption of duty. Note - Accident means sudden and unavoidable mishap or a mishap due to an act of devotion to duty. (iii) In the case of death of a Government servant on duty by violence attributable to service, means death as a result of encounter with criminals or in the course of confrontation with mobs or crowds or an unlawful assembly during agitation, riot or Civil Commotion or communal disturbance etc. (iv) The death of a Government servant other than in the circumstances mentioned in sub-rule (1) shall not be treated as death on duty for this purpose. (4)(a) An application for ex-gratia grant under this rule shall be made by the member of his/her family who is entitled for grant of family pension in the form given in Annexure IV attached to these rules within a period of one year from the date of death failing which the same shall not be entertained by the Head of Department. (b) The expenditure on this account shall be debited to the Budget Head. (c) The amount of ex-gratia shall be drawn by the Head of Office from the Treasury on a simple receipt form on the basis of sanction issued by the Head of the Department and make payment of the grant to the member of the family of the deceased Government servant. No authority from the Director, Pension Department, Rajasthan will be required for such payment. (d) The Head of Department should ensure that payment of 'Ex-gratia grant' is made within 10 days of the date of receipt of completed application." 11. From a persual of Rule 268-HH (3)(ii) of the RSR, it is apparent that in case of death of an employee while on duty it is unnecessary to infer that the death must have taken place as a result of accident or during the course of employment or that the death must be caused as a result of the injury sustained by deceased employee in such accident. The accident has been defined under Note to clause (ii) of Sub-rule (3) to Rule 268-HH and according to which 'Accident' means sudden and unavoidable mishap or a mishap due to an act of devotion to duty. Thus, as per provision (supra) even the death caused by sudden cardiac arrest of an employee would also fall within the purview of 'accidental death' caused due to the act of devotion to duty viz., because of severe strain and stress resulting from discharge of his official duty and devotion to duty. In my considered view, the only factor to be reckoned within such circumstances is that the death of an employee must be proximate result of the act (sic) in due performance of devotion to his duty, as a consequence of which the person had died. In case there is no direct evidence, the court can draw inferences inevitably arising from such evidence of circumstances on record. Thus, it has to be borne in mind that when a man suddenly collapses and dies immediately after his return from patrolling duty continuously from performance of devotion of his duty for more than eight hours, it is the most natural inference for the court to draw that the proximate cause of death of the employee was as a result of the performance of devotion to his duties. I lend (sic) support from the decision delivered by Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Shri Chagla, C.J. and Shri Dixit, J., in Bai Diva Kaluji v. Silver Cotton Mills, 1956(1) LLJ 740 . Thus viewed from and applying the principle laid down in Bai Diva Kaluji's case (supra) to the present case even though Gopal Singh deceased had died soon after return to his residence from devotion to duty being performed on 9.4.93, his death was caused due to severe cardiac arrest, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be inferred that his death was not as a result of serve strain/stress due to the act of devotion to duty having been performed rigorously. This fact is also borne out from the medical certificate issued by the doctor who had examined the deceased. According to the doctor as reported in the certificate (Annexure 3) when the doctor was summoned to examine the patient Gopal Singh, he had already died due to severe cardiac arrest. This fact is also borne out from the medical certificate issued by the doctor who had examined the deceased. According to the doctor as reported in the certificate (Annexure 3) when the doctor was summoned to examine the patient Gopal Singh, he had already died due to severe cardiac arrest. Hence, there is no iota of evidence/doubt or suspicion to take a contrary view of the matter and the only irresistible conclusion which emerges is that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the death of the deceased Gopal Singh had taken place as a result of strain/stress connected with discharge of his official duty/due to an act of devotion to duty while in the course of his employment and in my considered view, it does not mean that the death must have taken place while discharge of the duties in the office itself but such death like Gopal Singh's could happen anywhere being an act of God even after returning to his residence. Therefore, there being direct proximity between the cause of death i.e. severe stress and strain to the employee while in the course of discharge of his duties, there is no reason to rule out the benefit of benevolent ex-gratia under Rule 268-HH of the RSR. Thus, explanation in the Note to clause (ii) to Sub-rule (3) to Rule 268-HH is fully attracted to the case of Gopal Singh and the petitioner is entitled to succeed. I am fortified by the following observations made by Madras High Court in Sri Jayaram Motor Service v. Pitchammal, 1982(II) LLJ 149 - "12. The next question to be considered is whether the respondent's husband met with this death in the course of the employment and out of the employment. It is laid down in the case reported in Chhotulal v. Hamaram, (1969) A.C.J. 346 , that it is incumbent upon the Commissioner to be clear in his finding in respect of the question whether the accident arose out of and in the course of his employemnt. The question that the accident arose out of employemnt depends upon the facts of each particular case. One test for determining this is whether it was a part of the injured person's employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do that which caused the injury. The question that the accident arose out of employemnt depends upon the facts of each particular case. One test for determining this is whether it was a part of the injured person's employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do that which caused the injury. In the course of the judgment the following principles enunciated in Kondisetti Anjiah v. T. Lakshmiah, AIR 1969 Andhra Pradesh 15 , are quoted with approval : "It is enough if it is established that : (1) at the time of the accident he was in fact employed on the duties of his employment; (2) that it occurred at the place where he was performing those duties; and (3) that the immediate act which led to the accident is not so remote from the sphere of his duties as to be regarded as something foreign to them." In order to entitle a workman for compensation there must be a casual relationship between the cause of death and his employment. On a study of the above decisions it is evident that a workman died even after leaving the work as a result of stress and strain which he suffered earlier during the period of work a connection is established between the employment and his death." 12. In Bai Diva Kaluji's case (supra), it has been observed as follows - "It is not always easy to have direct evidence with regard to a material issue which has got to be established. There are occasions when the Court is compelled to draw inferences which naturally and inevitably arise from such evidence as there is on record. The mere paucity of evidence should not relieve the court of its obligation to come to a conclusion on necessary and material issues. As expert's evidence based on probabilities could not be thrown away lightly as he is entitled to answer all hypothetical questions put to him. The only safeguard which should be applied in such a case is to see that the hypotheses are correctly put to the expert. It is the most natural inference to draw that when a man suddenly collapses and dies very soon after and the doctor is not in a position to suggest any reason for this sudden collapse and the death ensuing that he was suffering from heart trouble which cannot be discovered on a mere clinical examination. It is the most natural inference to draw that when a man suddenly collapses and dies very soon after and the doctor is not in a position to suggest any reason for this sudden collapse and the death ensuing that he was suffering from heart trouble which cannot be discovered on a mere clinical examination. Further the fact that in the instant case the deceased workman had worked for eight hours on a hot day must have caused the strain and accelerated his death. In the circumstances the death must be held to be due to accident arising out of and in the course of employment." 13. It is not a dispute that according to affidavit dated 10.7.1997 of the petitioner, in view of the order dated 21.10.1993 passed after death of Gopal Singh, whose basic pay stood fixed w.e.f. 25.1.1992 at Rs. 1680/-, the petitioner who has undisputedly been granted family pension vide PPO dated 24.7.1993 (Annexure 4), is entitled to amount of ex-gratia grant to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- under sub-rule (2) of Rule 268-HH, RSR. Similarly, as per affidavit of the petitioner, again it is also not in dispute that her husband had two policies one of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another of United India Insurance Co., as referred to above, each of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the claims of (1) ex-gratia grant of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 268-HH, RSR, and (2) Insurance amounts of aforesaid two policies each of Rs. One lac. 14. As a result of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to get released amount of claims under the two group insurance policies each of the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) as admissible in accordance with circular dated 20.1.1992 (Annexure 6) as well as sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) by way of ex-gratia grant under Rule 268-HH of the Rajasthan Civil Service Rules, 1951 in favour of the petitioner Smt. Raj Kanwar wife of deceased employee Gopal Singh, Police Constable No. 1142, along with interest @ 18% per annum on the aforesaid two claim amounts from the date of their accrual till the date of realisation.The costs are made easy.Petition allowed. *******