JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Ajay Rajendra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. K. Rai, leaned counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has come up before this Court with the following prayers: “(i) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 5.9.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad in Original Application No. 216 of 2012 Smt.Kamlesh v. Union of India and others and order dated 23.12.2011 passed by respondent No. 3 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for Extraordinary Pension on account of untimely death of her husband in Parliament Election duty (Anneuxre No. 1 and 2) to the writ petition. (ii) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to pay Extraordinary Pension to the petitioner. (iii) to issue any other order or direction to the respondents to which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case. (iv) award cost of the writ petition.” 3. The petition has been filed for challenging the order of the Tribunal on various grounds. One of the ground is to the effect that Tribunal has not taken into consideration the risk factor involving in the election duty specifically at polling area, which is communally hit and there was an acute pressure, stress and high risk to person’s life, safety and security of polling materials, electronics machines, ballot papers etc. Presence of political muscle men on the Polling Station are direct threat to life etc. are adopted by the supporters of rival candidates and dirty party politics. 4. Election is the essence of a democracy. Free and fair elections are the tools on which democracy thrives. The personnel, who conduct the elections are as important as the election itself for maintenance of democracy. Free and fair election can be conducted only with the help of honest, brave and risk taking officials/officers who go on polling duties. The poll booths in India are no gardens of peace. They are battle field between rival political parties. Experience shows that these political wars turn into ugly war of muscle and money power. Physical violence is a routine and often results in serious causalities. People have lost their lives, property and other valuable rights in poll violence. The poll booths in India are no gardens of peace. They are battle field between rival political parties. Experience shows that these political wars turn into ugly war of muscle and money power. Physical violence is a routine and often results in serious causalities. People have lost their lives, property and other valuable rights in poll violence. In these situations, the polling officers have to conduct the elections and for some purpose, some perks have been evolved. The elections officers are assured that if something happens to them their families will be taken care of. Extraordinary pension is one of such assurances given to the poling officers. There is no doubt that these have to be governed by rules. The rules have to be interpreted honestly, benevolently and with magnanimity. Arbitrary denial of emoluments due to a person who has lost his life on election duty will only demoralize the officers who have to be sent on duty again. 5. The petitioner has forcefully argued that these aspects have been totally over looked by the Tribunal and the rules have been interpreted in the cursory manner. 6. Sri R.K. Rai, learned counsel for the Union of India has filed counter-affidavit and has stressed on the basis of instructions that the extra ordinary pension is not covered under the C.C.S. (Extra Ordinary Pension) Rule-Appendix-3. It has also argued that there is no record to prove that the death was hastened or invariable caused by the duty that the deceased Dharam Pal Singh was required to undertake. Sri R. K. Rai has further argued on the strength of para 4 of the counter-affidavit that the cause of death could not be ascertained from the post-mortem as is clear from the post-mortem report. Further the cause of death as mentioned in the panchnama is abdominal pain and as per the State Election Officer letter F.190/CEO-3 dated 19th September 2008 the cause of death was due to heart attack. The representation dated 18th October 2011 of the petitioner, has been examined as per the provisions of Rule 3-A (1) (b) of the extra ordinary pension Rules and it has been found that her request is not covered under these rules. The representation dated 18th October 2011 of the petitioner, has been examined as per the provisions of Rule 3-A (1) (b) of the extra ordinary pension Rules and it has been found that her request is not covered under these rules. He has also argued that the order dated 29th March 2012 is a reasoned and speaking order, the claim has not been rejected in a mechanical and vague manner and the order of the Tribunal is, therefore, correct. 7. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant’s husband late Dharam Pal Singh was working as Technical Assistant (T-II) at the Central Potato Research Institute, (Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India), Modipuram, District Meerut. He was sent on General Election duty by Election Commission of India and was working as Polling Officer in Polling party No. 1374 at Azad Colony, Meerut. During the election, he died on duty on 9.5.2004 due to heart attack. 8. The applicant filed O.A. No. 1570 of 2008 before the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal. The Original application was disposed of with the direction to the respondents for payment of insurance amount with interest and consideration of prayer for grant of extra ordinary pension in accordance with CCS (Extra Ordinary Pension) Rules. The impugned order has been passed in compliance of the second part of aforementioned order of the Original Application. The applicant has stated that it is not disputed by the respondents that the applicant died during the course of election duty. it is also not disputed that he died of heart attack. Therefore, her case is covered under CCS (Extra Ordinary Pension) Rules. Para 3-A (ii) which reads : “3-A (ii)- The aggravation by Government service of a wound, injury or disease which existed before or arose during Government service. (2) There shall be a casual connection between (a disablement and Government Service; and (b) death and Government service.” 9. It is further argued by Sri R.K. Rai, learned counsel for the Union of India that heart attack will not be covered under the Rules and there is no nexus between the death and the duty performed by petitioner on that date. It is further argued by Sri R.K. Rai, learned counsel for the Union of India that heart attack will not be covered under the Rules and there is no nexus between the death and the duty performed by petitioner on that date. However, clarification attached to the Appendix-III clearly mentions that: “it is essential for the Administrative Officer as well as the Audit Office (PAO) concerned to satisfy themselves that the death/disability is, in fact, attributable to or aggravated by the Government service which alone makes an EOP Award admissible and for that purpose, it is essential for both of these authorities to satisfy themselves in that behalf and certify the nexus and casual connection between death and Government service (as the case may be), in any particular case, as laid down in the new Rule 3-A on the basis of the medical and other documents regarding the case. If a Government servant had died in such circumstances and that a medical report could not be secured, even then, the nexus and the casual connection between the death and Government service has to be established before conceding acceptance of death due to Government service” 10. Sri A. Rajendra, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed before this Court the judgment in the case of Delhi High Court dated 15.10.2015 in the matter of Rajesh Kumari v. Union of India and others. 11. We have gone through the judgment and found that the case is almost a carbon copy of circumstances. In the present case, there is an identical situation where death also occurred due to heart attack. The identical plea was taken with regard to CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules and it was argued that death was not occurred due to conditions which makes them eligible for pension under the rules. On the factual position, we find that the present case stands slightly on a better footing. In the case decided by the Delhi High Court, there was a mechanical finding, but in the case at hand the post-mortem report is conspicuously silent on the aspect of cause of death. The opinion has been formed by a member of the Executive, who has no medical knowledge to give any such opinion. 12. In the case decided by the Delhi High Court, there was a mechanical finding, but in the case at hand the post-mortem report is conspicuously silent on the aspect of cause of death. The opinion has been formed by a member of the Executive, who has no medical knowledge to give any such opinion. 12. In the light of above discussion, as well as ruling of Delhi High Court, we feel that the petitioner is entitled to the extra ordinary pension in terms of Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules over and above the other benefits she is entitled to as has been established. A direction is accordingly issued to the respondents to calculate the benefits payable under the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules and ensure that the same are paid alongwith the arrears due to her for the period 9.5.2004 within a maximum period of 3 months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the competent authority. In the circumstances, the respondent shall also pay interest @ 6% per annum on the said amount. 13. In view of the aforesaid observation, the impugned orders dated 5.9.2012 passed by the Tribunal and 23.12.2011 passed by the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Joint Director Central Potato Research Institute (ICAR) Modipuram, District Merrut are hereby set aside. 14. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.