JUDGMENT 1. 1. Contextual facts depict that Gopal Singh (since dead), Police Constable Belt No. 1142 of Ajmer Police, reported on duty 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 Sigh complained of chest pain, whereupon a doctor was called and after having clinically examined, the doctor declared him dead giving cause of death as severe cardiac arrest vide certificate dated 10.4.1993 (Annexure-3). 2. Smt. Raj Kanwar filed the writ petition claiming (1) benevolent benefit as an ex-gratia grant/amount under Rule 268HH 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 20.1.1929 (Annexure 6). 3. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition by the impugned order dated 13.1.1999, directed the respondents to get released amount of claims under the two group insurance policies each to the tune of As. one lac as admissible in accordance with circular dated 20.1.1992 (Annexure 6) as well as a sum of Rs. 50,000/-by way of ex-gratia grant under Rule 268HH of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, 1951 in favour of the petitioner Raj Kunwar wife of deceased employee Gopal Singh, along with interest @ 18% p.a. on the aforesaid two claim amounts from the date of their accrual till the date of realization. 4. 50,000/-by way of ex-gratia grant under Rule 268HH of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, 1951 in favour of the petitioner Raj Kunwar wife of deceased employee Gopal Singh, along with interest @ 18% p.a. on the aforesaid two claim amounts from the date of their accrual till the date of realization. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that learned Single Judge failed to consider the provisions of Rule 268 HH) of the RSR, under which an incumbent is entitled to ex-gratia grant of family pension in case if he dies while in service, while in the instant case this fact is not in dispute that husband of the respondent died at 2 a.m. while his duty was over and he had returned to his residence and as such by no stretch of imagination death could be treated while on duty and as such no benevolent grant by way of ex-gratia could have been paid under the said Rules. It was also argued that the two Insurance companies were not parties to the writ petition, as such no direction could be issued for the realisation of the amount under the Policies. 5. Pear contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that learned Single Judge has rightly applied the connotation of accident provided under Rule 268HH of the RSR, which entitles the deceased employee benevolent ex-gratia grant in view of the legal position as envisaged by Madras High Court in Sri Jayaram Motor Service v. Pitchammal, 1982 (11) LLJ 149 as well as the decision delivered by Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Ball Diva Kaluji v. Silver Cotton Mills, 1956 (1) LLJ 740 . It was further contended that the amount under the two policies is to be processed through the State Government as the two policies are of Group Insurance Policies, and were on payment of premiums by the State Govt./Department as well as on contributory basis in accordance with the Circular dated 20.1.1992, (Annexure 6). 6. It was further contended that the amount under the two policies is to be processed through the State Government as the two policies are of Group Insurance Policies, and were on payment of premiums by the State Govt./Department as well as on contributory basis in accordance with the Circular dated 20.1.1992, (Annexure 6). 6. In Ball Diva Kaluji v. Silver Cotton Mills (supra) it has been observed as under : "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 can not 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 his accident arising out of and In the course of employment." 7. In the Instant case, It may be noticed that sub-Rule (2) of Rule 268HH provides for ex-gratia grant to the Government servant who dies while on duty under the circumstances mentioned therein. Sub-Rule (3) of the said rules provides that "Accident" means sudden and unavoidable mishap or a mishap due to an act of devotion to duty. Thus, from the facts it is revealed that the deceased employee was on duty since 6 a.m. upto 8 p.m. and thereafter he was summoned by his immediate superior In the office on the same day firstly at 1 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 where from he returned from duty in the mid night at about 2.00 a.m. on the night intervening 9th and 10th April, 1993, and immediately upon return from discharge of official duties to his residence, Gopal Singh complained of chest pain whereupon a doctor was called who declared him dead. Under these circumstances, the Court can draw inference that the proximate cause of death of the deceased employee was cardiac arrest at the young age of 39 years, a mishap due to devotion to duty as a result of severe stress and strain within the meaning of Rule 268 HH of R.S.R. Likewise, it is also revealed that two group insurance policies were adopted by the Department and, as such the amount of insurance was to be released through the Department. Therefore, no interference is called for in the order of the learned Single Judge. 8. For these reasons, we find no merit in the instant appeal. The same accordingly stands dismissed without any order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******