ORDER : The present petition has been filed by the wife of late Shri Balbir Singh seeking Ex gratia Pension on account of her husband having died while on duty. 2. Late Sh. Balbir Sigh was working as Forester (Regional Forest Officer) and was posted under the office of respondent No.4 – The Dy. Conservator of Forest, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Stage-II, Bikaner. He died in a road accident at the time when he was on routine round of the forest area. The FIR dated 13.09.2011 speaks for itself. Even the certificate Annexure 2 has been issued by the Dy. Conservator of Forest, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna, Stage -II, Bikaner. The petitioner was granted the family pension and the benefits of Gratuity but was denied the benefits of Ex-gratia Pension. 3. The case of the petitioner was forwarded to the concerned authorities under Rule 75 and 76 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 in the prescribed proforma along with all requisite documents i.e. Certificate as well as the relevant Forms as the husband of the petitioner died while in service. The case of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 30.06.2014 stating that after examination, the case in hand was not found fit for Ex-Gratia Pension under Rule 75(i) and (ii) of the Rules of 1996. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents states that it appears from the Certificate Annexure 2 that the last line was added as an afterthought, hence, the Ex-gratia pension was denied to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. 6. A perusal of the Annexure R/1, vide which the matter seems to have been discussed, there is no mention as to why the case of the petitioner was rejected. Neither the reason that the last line of the certificate was written subsequently as argued by the learned counsel for the respondents is mentioned in the reply and nor is the same evident in the said discussion. In fact, the very order is non-speaking and passed without application of mind. Moreover, the respondents cannot over-look the FIR and the main contents of the certificate which specifically mentions the details of the accident. In fact, the very order is non-speaking and passed without application of mind. Moreover, the respondents cannot over-look the FIR and the main contents of the certificate which specifically mentions the details of the accident. A perusal of the FIR itself shows that the husband of the petitioner, Balbir Singh along with other employees of the Forest Department, whose names have been specifically mentioned in the FIR, were going in the said vehicle on their routine round in the forest area. Even if the line written by the hand in the certificate is ignored, in the main content of the Certificate itself, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner was on his routine round of forest and accompanied by the other forest employees. Meaning thereby, the petitioner was on duty. These facts have not been disputed. It is evident that the petitioner had indeed died while on duty. Thus, the action of the respondents in refusing to grant the Ex-gratia pension is highly arbitrary, unfair and unjust and against the Rule 75(1) of the Pension Rules of 1996. There is nothing on record to show that the case in hand does not satisfy the condition as laid down in Rule 75(iii) of the said Rules. 7. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the order refusing the Ex-gratia Pension is set aside. The respondents are directed to grant Ex-Gratia Pension in accordance with law within a period of two months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order.