JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal arises from order dated 08th January 2015 allowing Civil Writ Petition No. 953 of 1999. The Learned Single Judge held that the respondent was entitled to special pensionary award under rule 268 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Service Rules') from the date of death of her husband, who was a Constable. The arrears were directed to be paid within 3 months with interest at the rate of 9% per annum under Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Pension Rules') failing which it was to carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the deceased did not die while on duty but when he was going home after duty hours. Hence the question of any special pensionary award for death while on duty does not arise. It was next submitted that death having taken place on 15th November 1979, the claim for special pension by filing Writ Petition in the year 1999, about 20 years later was highly belated. Reliance was placed on 2007 (9) SCC 274 . It was next submitted that the writ petition having been filed in the year 1999, the Pension Rules would apply and the respondent was not entitled to special pensionary award under Rule 109(1)(ii) of the same. Service Rule 268(hhh) was inserted by an amendment on 13th January 1989 with effect from 01st April 1986. Death having taken place on 15th November 1979, the question of granting any ex gratia payment does not arise. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that Rule 268(i) in Chapter XXIII-B of the Service Rules provides for special pensionary award. Sub-clause (ii) thereof provides that it would be payable to those killed while on duty as a result of enemy action. In C.W.P. No. 1668 of 1987 – Smt. Savita Yadav v. State of Rajasthan & Others, a Division Bench of this Court on 11th January 1990 struck down the words "as a result of enemy action" confining it to death while on duty only, holding the classification to be arbitrary. 4. In C.W.P. No. 1668 of 1987 – Smt. Savita Yadav v. State of Rajasthan & Others, a Division Bench of this Court on 11th January 1990 struck down the words "as a result of enemy action" confining it to death while on duty only, holding the classification to be arbitrary. 4. Reliance was further placed on S.A.W. No. 212 of 2012 - State of Rajasthan & Others v. Smt. Paras Kanwar, dated 15th May 2012 dealing with a similar situation where a Constable died on duty as a result of motor vehicle accident and relief was granted following the decision in Smt. Savita Yadav (supra). The judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) CC No. 4709 of 2013 on 04th March 2013. 5. Rule 109 (1)(ii) of the Pension Rules was but an incorporation of Rule 268(i) of the Service Rules, after it was struck down in Savita Yadav (supra) as it also visualizes death on duty. The Respondent was therefore legitimately entitled to special pensionary award. The Single Bench rightly granted statutory interest under the Pension Rules because of delayed payment. The appeal merits no consideration and the Respondent is entitled to entire arrears in accordance with the Service Rule 268(K) along with interest as directed. 6. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. 7. The husband of the respondent died in a motor vehicle accident on his way home after discharge of duties on 15th November 1979. A Government servant who leaves his house to proceed on duty and till he returns home from duty shall be considered to be on duty as it is integrally connected to discharge of duties. There clearly exists a causal connection between duty and death. The travel to duty and return from duty cannot be made disjunctive as they are conjunctive and integrally connected with each other. We are not required to deal with the situation where a Government servant leaves his place of duty, proceeds for a third place for performance of his social or cultural engagement or occupation and then proceeds for his house. That is an entirely different situation and may call for a consideration different from the present. The Single Judge not having granted any relief under rule 268(hhh) of the Service Rules, there is no occasion for us to consider the submission of the Appellant in this regard. 8. That is an entirely different situation and may call for a consideration different from the present. The Single Judge not having granted any relief under rule 268(hhh) of the Service Rules, there is no occasion for us to consider the submission of the Appellant in this regard. 8. Once we have held that the deceased was on duty till he returns home from the place he was discharging duty and died as a result of motor vehicle accident, he would be entitled to the benefits as on duty under Rule 268(i)(ii) as held in Savita Yadav. Our view is further buttressed by Smt Paras Kanwar (supra). The entitlement of the respondent of special pensionary award is, therefore upheld. But we also find that the Service Rules provide for a statutory procedure to apply for the same. The Respondent never applied in the prescribed manner. A lawyers notice dated 24th October 1998 cannot be a substitute for an application made in the prescribed manner under the Service Rules. The writ petition was preferred in 1999 seeking mandamus without a proper demand and refusal of relief. 9. Delay has been held vital in claims made invoking the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. But it cannot be an absolute ground to reject the claim irrespective of all other facts and circumstances. If third party rights accrue in the meantime or the other side has altered its position due to inaction of the claimant and if it is condoned, prejudice would be caused undoubtedly the discretionary jurisdiction will not be available. A claim for pension does not affect any third party rights neither does it lead to alteration of their position by the Appellants which would get prejudiced if it were to be allowed. But if there is unreasonable delay, it calls for exercise of appropriate discretion under Article 226 and may necessitate moulding of relief in an appropriate case. 10. In absence of the Respondent having claimed special pensionary award for 20 years, from 1979 to 1999, much less in the prescribed statutory manner coupled with the fact that she has already been granted compassionate appointment and was receiving family pension also we hold that she is not entitled to special pensionary award from the date of death of her husband till the date of institution of the writ application. 11. 11. We find no reason why the Respondent is not entitled to relief from the date of institution of the writ petition in view of Savita Yadav (supra) striking down the latter part of rule 268 (i) (ii) of the Service Rules, followed in Smt Paras Kanwar (supra) affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Respondent is therefore held entitled to the special pensionary award from the date of institution of the writ petition. If it has remained pending before this Court, she cannot be visited with the consequences. 12. The next question for our consideration is the grant of interest by the Single Judge at the rate of 9% from the date of death invoking Rule 89 of the Pension Rules. We find that attention of the Single Judge was not drawn to the procedure prescribed in the Service Rules to apply for the special pensionary award. Had the Respondent applied in the prescribed manner and in due time and no heed may have been paid by the Appellants, there may have been justification for invoking Rule 89 of the Pension Rules. A bare perusal of Rule 89(1) of the Pension Rules provides that interest at the rate of 9% per annum would be granted if it was established that the delay in payment was not on account of failure in compliance of the procedure laid down in the law. In view of our finding that the Respondent never applied in the prescribed manner raising a delayed claim, the order under appeal granting interest at the rate of 9% per annum under the Pension Rules is held to be not sustainable and is set aside. 13. Resultantly the appeal is partly allowed. The Respondent is held entitled to special pensionary award from the date of institution of the writ petition in the year 1999, to be paid to her within a maximum period of 3 months from the date of receipt and or production a copy of this order, failing which she will be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the writ application till date of payment. Appeal partly allowed.