ORDER P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. I. Longchar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. I have also heard Mrs. Lucy, learned Govt. Advocate for Respondents No. 1 to 5 and Mr. T.B. Jamri, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 6. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that her husband had been working as work charged jugali in the Department of Power under the Executive Engineer, Changtonagya Division for about 20 years. While Petitioner's husband was on duty got electrocuted on 19.10.2000 and died on 28.10.2000 at Jorhat Christian Medical Centre leaving the Petitioner and a son, who also unfortunately died on 1.2.08 after prolonged illness. As legal wife/legal heir of the Petitioner she has been claiming payment of Extra Ordinary Family Pension, GPF and Ex-gratia. None of the said claims has been granted to the Petitioner except the death-cum-retirement gratuity (DCRG). The Chief Engineer sent up a proposal to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Powers Department for payment of ex-gratia amounting to Rs. 1 lac. But till now ex-gratia amount has not been granted to the Petitioner. 3. Mr. I. Longchar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner's case is covered by the judgment and order dated 25.7.2011 passed by this court in WP (C) No.187 (K) of 2009 and this case may also be disposed of by granting the similar relief. 4. Mrs. Lucy, learned Govt. Advocate relying on the statements made in the counter affidavit filed by the State Respondents, submits that there is no rule and circular allowing payment of Extra Ordinary Pension to the legal heirs of work charged employee, who dies in harness or in accident. Similarly there is also no rule and circular or policy for payment of ex-gratia to work charged employee or his legal heirs. Such ex-gratia can be paid only in case of death in action encounter as per O.M. dated 6.6.1995 and this O.M. does not cover the Petitioner's case as her husband died in accident and not in action encounter. In the earlier case as referred by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner it was conceded that the Petitioner is not entitled to Family Pension under the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972. In the earlier case as referred by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner it was conceded that the Petitioner is not entitled to Family Pension under the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972. However, it was directed in the said case that the State Respondents should finalise the payment of ex-gratia and also consider the demand for Extra Ordinary Pension under the provisions of CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules. 5. The learned Counsel for the parties are at agreement that if a similar order as was passed in WP (C) No.187 (K) of 2009 on 25.7.2011 is passed in the present case, it will meet the ends of justice. 6. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the State Respondents particularly Respondents No. 3,4 and 5 to consider and finalise the payment of ex-gratia to the Petitioner as early as possible preferably within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The aforesaid Respondents shall also consider and pass necessary orders in regard to payment of Extra Ordinary Pension as per her entitlement and as per provisions of CCS (Extra Ordinary Pension) Rules, preferably within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 7. The Petitioner shall furnish certified copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition and its Annexures thereto, to the concerned Respondents for taking appropriate decision and necessary action.