Judgment 1. The petitioner is the widow of Late Nand Kishore Prasad Yadav, who was posted as A.S.I. at Phulwaria police station in the district of Gopalganj. Her husband was deputed on election duty as per the order of the Deputy Inspector General, Saran, Chapra alongwith other police officers to the State Assembly re-poll of Chapra district vide command no. 893164 dated 23.2.2000. He was deputed on re-poling duty of Taraiya Assembly Constituency at Booth No. 230 Primary School Guraul vide Command No. 1246240. While on duty after the re-poll Nand Kishore Prasad Yadav had some chest pain and he was advised and referred to P.M.C.H. or I.G.I.M.S., Patna for consulting cardiologist. When he came to Patna he was shot dead by some unknown criminals in the postal park area of Kankerbagh police station and his service revolver was also looted. An F.I.R. in this connection was instituted with Kankerbagh police station and case no. 119 of 2000 dated 25.2.2000 was registered under Sections 302, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that her husband died on election duty, but the respondents authorities have not paid the Insurance amount payable to a police personnel dying on election duty as well as rupees two lacs fifty thousand ex gratia amount. Her family pension has also not been passed, rather adjusted, on this plea that her husband did not pass Hindi Noting and Drafting Examinations as such the increments paid to him are excess payment, liable to be adjusted. 3. Petitioner represented before the Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj for payment of Insurance amount and ex gratia amount. The Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj on 5.6.2000 wrote a letter to the District Magistrate-cum-Election Officer, Saran for payment of insurance amount to the petitioner. He also sent a letter to Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur for payment of ex gratia to the petitioner and also sent reminder for the same. The Deputy Inspector General (Personnel), Bihar also recommended for payment of election insurance amount as well as ex gratia amount in compliance of the resolution of the State Government dated 5.5.1997 but no such payments have been made. 4. The Deputy Inspector General (Personnel), Bihar also recommended for payment of election insurance amount as well as ex gratia amount in compliance of the resolution of the State Government dated 5.5.1997 but no such payments have been made. 4. The State Government by resolution dated 5.5.1997 has resolved to make payment of ex gratia to such police personnel who died or became injured in course of election duty, or in course of their duty due to terrorists activity or any criminal activity. Petitioners husband was killed by criminals while on election duty as such the petitioner is entitled for ex gratia amount but that is not being paid. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer, Saran, Chapra, respondent no. 5, the Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj, respondent no. 2 the Chief Election Officer, State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna as well as the Insurance Company. 6. During the pendency of this application I.A. No. 1523 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner for impleading the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna and Treasury Officer, Patna as respondent no. 8 and 9 respectively in view of the P.P.O. issued in favour of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-E to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing the letter dated 8.2.2004 issued under the signature of respondent no. 4 the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer, Saran, Chapra by which the petitioner was asked to produce the original certificate of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination of her husband otherwise the increments amount allowed to the husband of the petitioner will be recovered from family pension and gratuity amount. It so happened that after the death of petitioners husband final family pension was approved by the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna and pension payment order was issued in favour of the petitioner i.e. Annexure-E to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4. After receiving the pension payment order the petitioner deposited it in the office of the Treasury Officer, Patna for payment of her family pension but the same was not paid to her. Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj also requested the Treasury Officer for payment of family pension to the petitioner but it was not paid to the petitioner. 4. After receiving the pension payment order the petitioner deposited it in the office of the Treasury Officer, Patna for payment of her family pension but the same was not paid to her. Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj also requested the Treasury Officer for payment of family pension to the petitioner but it was not paid to the petitioner. Subsequently petitioner came to know that family pension has been adjusted withheld on account of non-entry in the service book of her late husband regarding passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. The petitioner was informed that increment amount already paid to the petitioners husband is being recovered on account of non-passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination from the pension and gratuity of the petitioner. Only in case she submits some documents in support of this fact that her husband has passed Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination the amount adjusted from family pension and gratuity will be passed. It has been submitted by the petitioners counsel that it is the well settled law that no recovery or adjustment of death-cum-retiral benefits can be made on account of non-passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. The adjustment of amount on account of non-entry of passing Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination in the service book is not permissible after the death of an employee and no recovery can be made from death-cum-retiral benefits of an employee payable to his widow and other legal heirs. The act of the respondents being arbitrary and being against the several decisions of the Supreme Court, the order contained in letter dated 3.10.2001 issued under the signature of respondent no. 4 (Annexure-14) and letter dated 19.3.2005 contained in Annexure-16 are liable to be quashed. The respondents be directed to make payment of family pension which has been withheld after the issuance of payment order issued in favour of the petitioner. 7. Another interlocutory application has been filed by the petitioner being, I.A. No. 1155 of 2005. This petition was filed in view of subsequent order passed by the concerned authority rejecting the claim of the petitioner and also for adding Deputy Secretary, Department of Home Police, Bihar, Patna and Branch Manager, National Insurance Company, Branch No. Ill as party respondent nos. Another interlocutory application has been filed by the petitioner being, I.A. No. 1155 of 2005. This petition was filed in view of subsequent order passed by the concerned authority rejecting the claim of the petitioner and also for adding Deputy Secretary, Department of Home Police, Bihar, Patna and Branch Manager, National Insurance Company, Branch No. Ill as party respondent nos. 6 and 7 in view of the order dated 31.1.2003 passed under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Department of Home Police contained in Annexure-11 to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 and also letter dated 1.12.2000 issued under the signature of Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office No. Ill, Patna. 8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 the letter dated 1.12.2000 is annexed as admixtures which has been issued under the signature of Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office No. Ill, Patna. By this letter dated 1.12.2000 the petitioner has been informed that her claim of election insurance amounting to rupees ten lacs has been rejected by the competent authority. This letter was never communicated to the petitioner and for the first time the Branch Manager of National Insurance Company informed then the petitioner came to know about the rejection of her claim. 9. It has been submitted by the petitioners counsel that the rejection of petitioners claim of election insurance amount is in clear contravention of the letter dated 10.2.2000 issued under the signature of Chief Election Officer, Bihar. In paragraph 2 of the letter dated 11.2.2000 it is mentioned that the election insurance scheme has come in force from 9.2.2000 afternoon and will remain applicable till 8th March. During this period i.e. from 9th February to 8th March if the death is occurred of any person who has been deputed for election duty due to any type of accidental death then rupees ten lacs will be paid by the Insurance Company to the family members of the deceased employee. It is admitted fact that the husband of the petitioner was found murdered on 24/25.2.2000 i.e. during period when the election insurance scheme was in force. It is also admitted fact that the husband of the petitioner was found murdered while he was on election duty. It is admitted fact that the husband of the petitioner was found murdered on 24/25.2.2000 i.e. during period when the election insurance scheme was in force. It is also admitted fact that the husband of the petitioner was found murdered while he was on election duty. The election was held on 24.2.2000 and on the same day in the night he was found murdered which is clear from the F.I.R (Annexure-1). It has been submitted by the petitioners counsel that it is also clear from paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 5 the Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj that after the re-poll A.S.I. Nand Kishore Prasad Yadav had some chest pain and he was advised and referred to P.M.C.H. or I.G.I.M.S., Patna for consulting cardiologist. While going for medical consultation on the instruction of the local doctor and with the permission of the superior authority in the night of 24.2.2005 he was found murdered near the postal park, Kankerbagh. He was found murdered while he was deputed on election duty as such the petitioner is legally entitled for rupees ten lacs under election insurance. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Home Police, Bihar, Patna by letter dated 31.1.2003 has rejected the claim of the petitioner with regard to payment of ex gratia without any basis hence this order is also liable to be quashed. The order contained in letter dated 1.12.2000 contained in Annexure-C to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 as also letter dated 6.1.2003 contained in Annexure-G to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 are liable to be quashed and a direction should be issued to the respondent authority to pay election insurance amount and ex gratia to the petitioner. 10. In all counter affidavits as well as the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents it has been admitted that the husband of the petitioner was deputed on election duty of re-poll of Taraiya Assembly Constituency on 24.2.2000. There is no denial that the command which was issued for doing election duty was still in force when he was murdered by unknown criminals. This fact has also come in the counter affidavit of respondent no. There is no denial that the command which was issued for doing election duty was still in force when he was murdered by unknown criminals. This fact has also come in the counter affidavit of respondent no. 5 the Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj that after taking permission from the authorities and under the medical advise the petitioners husband had proceeded for his treatment to P.M.C.H. or I.G.I.M.S., Patna. He was killed by unknown criminals in the night of 24.2.2000. In this view of the matter he was still on election duty. It is not the case of the respondents that without the permission of the authorities the petitioners husband had proceeded for Patna, but the fact is that he had proceeded for his treatment under medical advise and on the direction of his superior authority. Resolution of the Government for making payment of ex gratia amount has full application in the case of the petitioners husband. The claim of the petitioner for payment of election insurance on the basis of letter dated 10.2.2000 issued under the signature of Chief Election Officer, Bihar, Patna cannot be denied as the death has occurred while the petitioners husband was on election duty in between 9.2.2000 to 8th March, 2000. The date of death of the petitioners husband is in between the night of 24.2.2000 and 25.2.2000, the Polling was held on 24.2.2000 and in the same night he was murdered by unknown criminals. In this view the coverage of election insurance is applicable in case of the petitioner and she is entitled to receive this amount. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the pleadings of the parties as well as the submission of their counsel I find that the prayer of the petitioner in the main writ application as well as in I.A. No. 1523 of 2005 and I.A. No. 1155 of 2005 are fit to be allowed. The order contained in letter dated 8.10.2001 issued under the signature of respondent no. 4 Annexure-14 letter dated 19.3.2005 contained in Annexure-16, letter dated 1.12.2000 contained in Annexure-C to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 and also the letter dated 6.1.2003 contained in Annexure-G to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 are quashed. 4 Annexure-14 letter dated 19.3.2005 contained in Annexure-16, letter dated 1.12.2000 contained in Annexure-C to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 and also the letter dated 6.1.2003 contained in Annexure-G to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 are quashed. Respondents are directed to pay the petitioner her family pension which has been withheld and also directed to pay the election insurance amount as well as the ex gratia amount to the petitioner for which she is entitled. All payments such as family pension, ex gratia amount, insurance amount should be made to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of presentation/communication of this order. It has also been submitted by the petitioners counsel that provident fund amount has also not been paid to the petitioner. In case this amount is still unpaid it should also be paid to the petitioner within the period mentioned above alongwith up to date statutory interest.