JUDGMENT : 1. Both the writ petitions have been filed by the common writ petitioner relating to her husband and are being decided together. 2. Brief facts to be noted are that the husband of the petitioner was a Constable in Rajasthan Police. He was asked to appear for physical efficiency test which was part of the examination for the purpose of promotion. It is stated that he had cleared the written test and for out door test he was directed to appear in out door test and while participating in running test, he expired. He was 46 years’ old and had been asked to run 2 K.M. in 15 minutes and a letter had been issued on 27.01.2014 by the Officers directing him for participating in the test. It is stated that without conducting medical test and his physical fitness, the authorities had asked him to participate in the running test. A guard of Honour was accorded to deceased Ramji Lal and thus has been treated to have died while on duty. Application was submitted by the petitioner for grant of ex-gratia amount on account of accidental death while on duty. Vide order dated 18.09.2014 ex-gratia payment under Rule 75(2)(a) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules of 1996 was allowed. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11470/2014 the petitioner prays for ex-gratia grant under Rule 75(2)(b) of the Pension Rules. In stead of what has been granted under Rule 75(1)(a) of the Rules of 1996. 3. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2072/2015 the petitioner claims that she is entitled for special pensionary award for which she has already submitted an application on 26.11.2014 special pension is granted under Rule 109 and 111 of the Pension Rules of 1996. 4. In reply, the respondents submitted that they had not compelled her husband to participate in the selection and the husband had not disclosed about any serious decease, requisite care in question was taken. While conducting the test, participation was not out of any compulsion and there was a medical team present on the spot which examined each and every candidate to confirm if they ware suffering from any Blood Pressure, Diabetes etc. While conducting the test, participation was not out of any compulsion and there was a medical team present on the spot which examined each and every candidate to confirm if they ware suffering from any Blood Pressure, Diabetes etc. In support of thereto the respondents rely on their letter inviting applications for promotion which stipulates that applications are invited from the eligible candidates which would mean that candidate who was eligible in all respects including being medically fit. It is stated the case of the petitioner’s husband did not fall within Rule 116 of the Rules of 1996 as the opinion of the Medical Board mentions cause of death having occurred on account of bilateral coronary artery decease. It is denied that the benefit could be extended under Rules 75 and 76 of the Rules of 1996 for ex-gratia grant, the death cannot be said to have being caused on the account of accident. 5. As regards special pension, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant under Rule 109 to 111 of the Rules of 1996. It is stated that husband of the petitioner was not killed as a result of encounter in criminals or in the course of confrontation, mobs or crowds during agitation, riots or disturbances etc nor due to any circumstances mentioned in Rule 109. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied on judgment passed by Coordinate Bench in case of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.985/2013 Smt. Suraj Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and the S.A.W. preferred by the State in the said case bearing No.734/2014 decided on 22.08.2015. He also placed reliance on judgment rendered by Division Bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1668/1987 decided on 11.01.1990 as well as judgment dated 01.08.2016 passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.591/2015 State of Rajasthan Vs. Mst. Madhu Bala. Which was relied upon in another judgment passed by Coordinate Bench S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11821/2015 dated 18.11.2016 Smt. Lad Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan has also been cited. 7. Mst. Madhu Bala. Which was relied upon in another judgment passed by Coordinate Bench S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11821/2015 dated 18.11.2016 Smt. Lad Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan has also been cited. 7. The issue relating in the present writ petitions revolves around the true and correct interpretation of the Provisions of the Pension Rules of 1996 and it would be useful to quote the same:- “Rule-75: Ex-gratia grant to the family of a Government servant who dies while on duty in certain circumstances (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 own headquarter or outside headquarter, in connection with special assignments like “Election duty”, “Census work” and/or such other assignments which do not fall within normal duties of the post held. "(2) (a) The amount of ex-gratia grant, when the Government servant dies under the circumstance mentioned in clause (a) of sub rule (1) shall be as follows: Sum of Running Pay Band plus Grade pay Amount of ex-gratia grant 1. Upto Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 50,000/- 2. Above Rs. 10,000/- but below Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 80,000/- 3. Rs. 20,000/- and above Rs. 1,00,000/- (b) The amount of ex-gratia grant, when the Government servant dies under any of the circumstances mentioned in clause (b) to (f) of sub rule (1) shall be Rs. 20 Lakhs. Provided that families of deceased Government servants who are also granted relief from sundry Government sources, such as, the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund, Chief Minister’s Relief Fund etc. In such cases, it should be ensured that the aggregate of the relief/ex-gratia grant paid from different sources does not exceed Rs.20 lacs in each individual case. 20 Lakhs. Provided that families of deceased Government servants who are also granted relief from sundry Government sources, such as, the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund, Chief Minister’s Relief Fund etc. In such cases, it should be ensured that the aggregate of the relief/ex-gratia grant paid from different sources does not exceed Rs.20 lacs in each individual case. (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 the 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 mob or crowds of an unlawful assembly during agitation, riot or civil commotion or communal disturbances etc. (iv) The death of a Government servant in other than the circumstances mentioned in sub rule (1) shall not be treated as death on duty for this purpose. (4) 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 Form 17 within a period of one year from the date of death failing which the same shall not be entertained by the Head of the Department. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (3) and subject to the provisions of sub-rule (4), in the case of death of a Government servant, while on "election duty", the Collector of the District shall also be competent to grant ex-gratia. GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN’S DECISIONS 1. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (3) and subject to the provisions of sub-rule (4), in the case of death of a Government servant, while on "election duty", the Collector of the District shall also be competent to grant ex-gratia. GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN’S DECISIONS 1. The provisions of this rule relating to special assignment of “Election duty” shall also be applicable to the employees of the Central Government, Undertakings of Centre or State, Statutory Corporations, Local Bodies, Autonomous Bodies, Cooperative Societies, R.B.I., Nationalized Banks etc. and Home Guard personnel who die while on election duty, at own headquarter or outside headquarter and would be granted an ex-gratia of (Rs.20 lakhs). The amount of ex-gratia grant shall be granted by the Collector of the concerned district to the member of the family of the deceased who is entitled to receive the Death Gratuity as per relevant rules, on receipt of application in the prescribed form 17.” 8. Rule 109 of the Pension Rules of 1996 has been amended vide notification dated 08.09.2015 as the death of the petitioner’s husband was caused prior to the said amendment the earlier Rules as it existed on 2.2.2014 i.e. on the date of death, shall apply which reads as under:- “Rule 109. Applicability: The rules in this Chapter shall apply to the following categories of Government servants on pensionable establishment whether temporary or permanent – (1) Police personnel whether in regular or irregular units including R.A.C. upto the rank of Commandant & Superintendent of Police (other than IPS officers) who – (i) die as a result of encounter with dacoits, (ii) killed while on duty, including Class IV servants followers & other noncombatant staff attached to Police Force, (iii) die as a result of encounter with criminals or in the course of confrontation with mobs or crowds during agitation, riot or disturbances etc. (2) Personnel of Preventive Branch of the Excise Department upto the rank of Excise Officer (Preventive) who are killed or die as a result of injury sustained while undertaking raids. Rule 110. (2) Personnel of Preventive Branch of the Excise Department upto the rank of Excise Officer (Preventive) who are killed or die as a result of injury sustained while undertaking raids. Rule 110. Applicability of Award: Award at the rates specified in Rule 111 shall be granted under this Chapter to the family of - (a) Police personnel who while in service are killed or die under any of the circumstances mentioned in the relevant clauses of Rule 109; (b) Personnel of Preventive branch of the Excise Department who while in service are killed or die under the circumstance mentioned in clause (2) of Rule 109. Rule 111. Amount of Award: Subject to the other provisions of this Chapter, the amount of Award and concessions admissible under this Chapter will be as follows :- (i) Death Gratuity as admissible under Chapter VB. (ii) If the Government servant is survived by the widow, she will be entitled family pension equal to the pay last drawn by the deceased Government servant. The said family pension shall be admissible for her life and until her marriage. (iii) In the case of Government servants, who expired before 1.9.2006, in that case the corresponding revised pay shall be determined in the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 on notional basis in the pay scale rules revised from time to time on the basis of last pay actually drawn in the respective pay scale of the post held by the deceased Government servant and thereafter revised family pension shall be allowed as per clause (ii) above. Non-accrual of Arrears : Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, no arrear of family pension shall accrue for the period from 1.9.2006 to 31.12.2006 (both days inclusive). (iv) Children of the deceased shall be entitled to the facility of free education in Government Schools and College within Rajasthan, to the same extent as permissible to the children of low paid Government Servants, according to rules thereon. (v) The family of the deceased shall be paid a sum of Rs. 2000/- for meeting expenses on the funeral rites of the deceased Government servant. (v) The family of the deceased shall be paid a sum of Rs. 2000/- for meeting expenses on the funeral rites of the deceased Government servant. (vi) In cases where the amount of Special Pensionary Award admissible under clause (ii) or (iii) of the Rule 111, falls short of minimum family pension payable under Chapter V-C, Special Pensionary Award shall be paid at the rate of minimum family pension under Chapter V-C (vii)(a) In the event of remarriage of the widow, family pension will be allowed to the eligible members at the rates of family pension & subject to the conditions laid down for family pension under Chapter V-C from the date following the date of remarriage of the widow. (b) In the event of death of the widow who has been granted family pension, the family pension will be allowed to the eligible members of the family at the rates and conditions laid down in clause (vii) below. (viii) If the Government servant is not survived by a widow but is survived by child/children only, all children together shall be eligible for family pension @ 60% of emoluments subject to minimum of Rs. 2500/- The above family pension shall be payable to child/children for the period during which they would have been eligible for family pension under Chapter V-C. The family pension shall be paid to the senior most eligible child at a time on the lines on which the family pension is regulated under Chapter V-C. (ix) Where the Government servant dies as a bachelor or as a widower without children, dependent pension would be admissible to the parents @ 75% of emoluments last drawn, if both parents are alive and @ 60% of emoluments if only one of them is alive. (x) Where the family pension or dependent pension is allowed in terms of these orders, no other family pension or dependent pension will be admissible under any other orders or rules in consideration of death of the same deceased Government servant.” 9. Apart from the above Rules of 1996, a look at the definition of the word duty as defined in the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 needs to be quoted to mean as under:- “Rule 8 Duty :- (a) Duty includes— (i) Service as a probationer or apprentice, provided that such service is followed by confirmation. (ii) Joining time. Apart from the above Rules of 1996, a look at the definition of the word duty as defined in the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 needs to be quoted to mean as under:- “Rule 8 Duty :- (a) Duty includes— (i) Service as a probationer or apprentice, provided that such service is followed by confirmation. (ii) Joining time. – (iii) In respect of a Government servant returning from leave the day of taking over charge of the same post from which he proceeds on leave. (iv) Probationer-trainee” 10. From above it is apparent that as per the Government of Rajasthan decisions appended to the Rule 7(8) government servants who are on deputation are treated to be on duty, government servants who are on various courses, are treated to be on duty, period of compulsory waiting returning from leave or during handing taken over charge also fall as part of duty and officers who are kept awaiting posting orders even if for long periods have been to be treated as on duty, candidates who appear for departmental examination as per following explanation are stated to be on duty clause 4 reads as under:- “(iv) In the case of a Government servant required to attend an obligatory departmental examination or permitted to present himself at an examination, the passing of which is a condition of preferment in Government service within the normal Scope of the Government servant's department or office the day or days of examination and any reasonable time required for the journey, if any, to and from the place of examination.” 11. Keeping in view of the aforesaid provisions, this Court finds that the petitioner’s husband was on duty while he was under going the promotion test for which he had been directed to appear as per letter dated 27.01.2014. 12. While he was under going out door test it appears that he suffered heart attack during running and died on 2.2.2014. The wife of the deceased his claiming here entitled for receiving ex-gratia grant of Rs. 20 Lacs as is admissible under Rule 75(2)(b) in stead of the amount release to her under Rule 75(2)(a). While the amount release to the petitioner is treating the death of the deceased government servant on duty outside his normal headquarters, the amount under Rule 75(2)(b) envisaged contingencies has mentioned in Rule 75(1)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f). 20 Lacs as is admissible under Rule 75(2)(b) in stead of the amount release to her under Rule 75(2)(a). While the amount release to the petitioner is treating the death of the deceased government servant on duty outside his normal headquarters, the amount under Rule 75(2)(b) envisaged contingencies has mentioned in Rule 75(1)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f). The respondents have denied her benefits under Rule 75(2)(b) treating that her husband and died while he was outside his normal headquarters no reasons have come forward as to how the respondents have treated her husband to have died. 13. Admittedly, vide letter dated 27.01.2014 it would be seen that the petitioner posted in the training headquarters himself and had been directed to appear for out door test had been conducted in Rajasthan Police Academy itself and therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner died while on duty outside his normal headquarters. Clause B (2) F of Rule 75(1) take into consideration all the other aspects and which had government servant may died while on duty which includes death they may be cause in an accident or by violence attributable two causes relative to his services. 14. The Supreme Court in the case of Civil Appeal No.9084/2012 Mst. Param Pal Singh through Father Vs. M/s National Insurance Co. & Anr. Considered a situation where a driver who was driving a truck duly insured, died on account of heart attack during the course of his employment. The Insurance Company had repealed the claim on the ground that there was no cause of action between the death of the deceased and death of his employment and had been caused due to natural causes. In the case of Mst. Param Pal Singh through Father Vs. M/S National Insurance Co. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.9084/2012), the Apex Court after referring to the decision of House of Lords in Clover Clayton & Co. Vs. Hughes reported in 1910 A.C. 242 and decision of Supreme Court in the case of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali & Anr.: IV (2006) ACC 769 (SC), held as under: Para 27: “Applying the various principles laid down in the above decisions to the facts of this case, we can validly conclude that there was CAUSAL CONNECTION to the death of the deceased with that of his employment as a truck driver. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali & Anr.: IV (2006) ACC 769 (SC), held as under: Para 27: “Applying the various principles laid down in the above decisions to the facts of this case, we can validly conclude that there was CAUSAL CONNECTION to the death of the deceased with that of his employment as a truck driver. We cannot lose sight of the fact that a 45 years old driver meets with his unexpected death, may be due to heart failure while driving the vehicle from Delhi to a distant place called Nimiaghat near Jharkhand which is about 1152 kms. Away from Delhi, would have definitely undergone grave strain and stress due to such long distance driving. The deceased being a professional heavy vehicle driver when undertakes the job of such driving as his regular avocation it can be safely held that such constant driving of heavy vehicle, being dependent solely upon his physical and mental resources & endurance, there was every reason to assume that the vocation of driving was a material contributory factor if not the sole cause that accelerated his unexpected death to occur which in all fairness should be held to be an untoward mishap in his life span. Such an ‘untoward mishap’ can therefore be reasonably described as an ‘accident’ as having been caused solely attributable to the nature of employment indulged in with his employer which was in the course of such employer’s trade or business.” 15. Thus viewed, the death of the deceased Ramji Lal husband of the petitioner has occurred on account of the stress and strain arising due to the running test which was in the course of employment, the running test was part of the nature of employment and even it is accepted that the deceased was already suffering from heart ailment, it can be safely stated that injury has aggravated due to stress and strain. 16. Apart from the same coming within the ambit of Rule 75(1)(b), it also falls within the meaning of circumstances mention in Rule 75(1)(e) that is by violence attributable to causes relative to his services. The body of the deceased had suffered violence on account of having been made to participate in a running test which was related to the service. 17. The body of the deceased had suffered violence on account of having been made to participate in a running test which was related to the service. 17. It is, therefore, held that the petitioner is entitled to receive benefit under Rule 75(2)(b) of the Pension Rules of 1996 and ex-gratia amount of Rs.20 Lacs was required to be released in her favour. 18. With regard to the prayer in writ petition No.2072/2015 the submission raised at bar by the learned senior counsel is that the petitioner’s husband who was Police personnel was killed while on duty. The judgments which learned counsel has cited relate to cases where persons was killed in an accident. In the State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Smt. Paras Kanwar the deceased was killed in a motor vehicle accident and special pensionary award was granted by extending benefits under the erstwhile Rule 268-I, 268-J of RSR, it is pari materia to Rule 109 of the Rules of 1996. 19. In case of Suraj Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) the deceased husband died while on duty in Loksabha Assembly Elections, the Single Bench of this Court has upon considering earlier judgment of Smt. Sarita Yadav (Supra) held the petitioner therein to be entitled special pension of award treating the husband to have been killed while on duty. 20. In the case of State of Rajasthan & ors. Vs. Smt. Suraj Kanwar (Supra) while the Division Bench while examining Rule 109 has considered the object and purpose of the said Rule as under:- “9. A fair, reasonable and purposive interpretation of three events under sub-rule 1 of Rule 109 of the Pension Rules, 1996, for entitlement of special pensionary awards guides us to consider and to read “dies while on duty” including Class IV servants followers & other non-combatant staff attached to Police Force in sub-rule 1 (ii), instead of the words “killed while on duty”. 10. The object and purpose of Rule 109 of the Pension Rules, 1996, is to provide special pensionary award, in case of death while on duty and the unnatural death by killing as a result of encounter with dacoits, or encounter with criminals. 10. The object and purpose of Rule 109 of the Pension Rules, 1996, is to provide special pensionary award, in case of death while on duty and the unnatural death by killing as a result of encounter with dacoits, or encounter with criminals. The purpose of providing three events, on which a police personnel will be entitled to special pensionary award, will include in sub-rule 1(ii), of Rule 109, “death while on duty”, which may not be a result of encounter with dacoits, or encounter with criminals or in the course of confrontation with mobs or crowds during agitation, riot or disturbances etc. 11. In view of the aforesaid interpretation of Rule 109 of the Pension Rules, 1996, the submission that the case of the respondent. Husband did not fall in any of the three categories is unacceptable.” 21. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Mst. Madhu Bala while granting special pension to the petitioner on account of death of her husband died while going home after duty hours. The Court restricted special pensionary award from the date of filing of the writ petition. It may be noted that the word killed as interpreted by this Court, has been considered by the State and they have now amended Rule 109 of the Rules of 1996 w.e.f. 08.09.2015 but as the claim of the petitioner is on account of death which occurred on 2.2.2014 prior to the coming into force of the new Rule of the amended Rule 109, her case would fall within the definition of the Rule 109 as it existed prior to the amendment. 22. Thus viewed, I find that the petitioner who died and was killed while he was undergoing a running test for which he had been directed to participate, although he was more than 45 years of age and in normal course under the Police Sub-ordinate Service Rules was not required to undergo the outdoor tests and physical endurance test has to be treated to fall within Rule 109(2) of the Rules of 1996 and hence the petitioner is entitled to receive special pensionary award in terms of Rule 111 of the Rules of 1996. 23. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondents shall release ex-gratia grant in terms of Rule 75(2)(b) of an amount of Rs. 23. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondents shall release ex-gratia grant in terms of Rule 75(2)(b) of an amount of Rs. 20 Lacs in favour of the petitioner alongwith interest admissible to her from the date of death at the rate of 9 per annum after deducting the amount which has already been released in terms of Rule 75(2)(a) of the Rules of 1996. The letter rejecting claim of the petitioner dated 28.01.2015 for special pension is set aside and it is directed to grant special pension award in terms of Rule 109 read with Rule 111 of the Pension Rules of 1996 with interest on the arrears of pension @ 9% per annum. 24. Both the writ petitions are allowed in aforesaid terms. Compliance of this direction shall be made within period of two months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order. 25. No costs.