ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 2. The widow is before this Court raising a grievance of denial of ex-gratia amount/compensation and medical expenses incurred on the treatment of her late husband. The reason for rejection is that the husband of the petitioner was not engaged in active election duty. His duty as Block Level Officer (BLO) was in the matter of distribution of Voters awareness pamphlet. 3. The brief facts for the purpose of deciding the present writ application are set out herein below : 4. On 12.09.2015, the husband of the petitioner was issued letter. Annexure-3 by the District Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Bhojpur. Since this has relevance, therefore, it would be appropriate to quote the letter (Annexure-3): “Election Urgent ANNEXURE-VIII (CHAPTER-III, OF PARA 3.9.3) ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF 1ST POLLING OFFICER (FIRST APPOINTMENT LETTER) ASSEMBLY ELECTION 2015 In pursuance of sub-section (1) & sub-section (3) of 26 of Representation of the People Act, 1963 (43 of 1951), I, DR. BIRENDRA PRASAD YADAV (IAS), District Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Bhojpur, hereby appoint the following officer specified in the column 1 of the table below as duty mentioned in the corresponding entry in column 2 of the table below: Name & address of the Officer Duty 1 2 PIN No. 2905589 1st Polling Officer Name SHASHI BHUSHAN RAI Designation TEACHER Office Name BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICE, PIRO (HRD-062) 200352 Address BLOCK- PIRO DIST-BHOJPUR Contact No. 7739714487 TRAINING DETAILS Training schedule attached in separate sheet. IMPORTANT 1. Participation in training on all the above mentioned dates are compulsory. 2. All 1st Polling Officer should ensure their digital, photography at the training centre during first training. 3. Failing to do so will invite strong legal action under relevant provisions of Representation of the People Act, 1951 and other laws relating to the conduct of elections. 4. Second appointment letter will be issued later on for each phase of election indicating date, time and place of joining to perform poll duty. 5. Final appointment letter (revealing tagged polling station) and polling materials shall be provided to them before their departure for the assigned polling station. 6. Those person whose photograph is correct or missing, must ensure for photography by the photographer deputed at training centre. 7. Please ensure the correctness of your mobile no. in the attendance sheet. Please enter the mobile no. 6. Those person whose photograph is correct or missing, must ensure for photography by the photographer deputed at training centre. 7. Please ensure the correctness of your mobile no. in the attendance sheet. Please enter the mobile no. if it is missing or correct it if it is incorrect in the attendance sheet your are signing. Date 12-Sep-2015 Place Bhojpur Authorised to issue Officer I/c District Election Officer -cum-District Magistrate Bhojpur” 5. From Annexure-3, it is manifest that the District Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Bhojpur has appointed the husband of the petitioner in connection with conduct of 2015 Assembly Election. The husband of the petitioner was appointed as 1st Polling Officer vide Annexure-3. After Annexure-3, the husband of the petitioner started performing his responsibility. He was engaged as Block Level Officer, from before whose job is to prepare, improve and modify the voter list. It is continuing process and it is not one time exercise, but the main responsibility of BLO was to prepare and improve the voter list. Husband of the petitioner was also assigned the responsibility of educating the voters by distributing the Voters awareness pamphlet. 6. It is submitted by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner was engaged in educating the voter and distributing the Voters awareness pamphlet, after notification of election, he met an accident and during course of treatment he died on 12.10.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the death of the husband, the petitioner approached pillar to post for consideration of the case for grant of ex-gratia and also for payment of expenses incurred in the treatment on her late husband. The Election Officer, 196 Tarari Assembly on 17.02.2017 reported the District Election Officer, Bhojpur, Ara that although husband of the petitioner was appointed as 1st Polling Officer and for the purpose of training in connection with poll duty letter was issued on 12.09.2015 and the husband of the petitioner was asked to distribute Voters awareness pamphlet, which is not considered as active election duty. In the report of the Election Officer, Tarari Assembly Constituency, has admitted that from the record, it appears that the Voter slip was received on 11.10.2015 by the Block Development Officer and before the receipt of Voter slip the husband of the petitioner met an accident and he died during the process of distribution of Voters awareness pamphlet, which has no causal connection with the active election duty. Based on the report of the Election Officer, Tarari, the District Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate has submitted that the husband of the petitioner died in accident while performing the duty as BLO and distributing Voters awareness pamphlet. Relevant part of the comment of the District Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara is quoted herein below: ^^6- Jh jk; 196&rjkjh fo/kkulHkk fuokZpu {ks= ds ernku dsUnz la[;k 7 eujsxk Hkou ihjks ds fy, ernku dsUnz Lrjh; inkf/kdkjh ds :i esa izfrfu;qDr Fks vius fu;fer drZO; fuoZgu ds nkSjku Jh jk; ch0,y0vks0 ds :i esa vius fu;fer drZO; ij ,oa muds }kjk ernkrk tkx:drk vihy iphZ forj.k gsrq iphZ izkIr fd;k x;k FkkA mlh nkSjku lM+dk nq?kVZuk esa Jh jk; dh e`R;q gqbZA pawfd Jh jk; dh e`R;q ernkrkvksa ds tkx:drk ls lacaf/kr vihy iphZ forj.k ds Øe esa gqvk gS tks ch0,0vks0 ds :i esa izfrfu;qDr dehZ dk lkekU; dk;Z gSa bls lfØ; ernku drZO; ds fuoZgu dh Js.kh esa ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSsA fofnr gks fd Jh jk; dks ernku ny inkf/kdkjh izFke ds :i esa izFke fu;qfDr i= tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk ijarq mudh e`R;q izf'k{k.k vFkok fuokZpu ds fdlh vU; drZO; ds nkSjku ugha gqbZ gSA fuokZph inkf/kdkjh≶&vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh] ihjksa dk tk¡p izfrosnu ¼i=kad 10@fuokZ0 fnukad 17-02-2017½ dh izfr i= ds lkFk layXuA vr% Jh jk; dks fu;ekuqdqy vuqxzg vuqnku dh vuq'kalk ugha dh tk ldrh gSA** 7. The Deputy Chief Election Officer, Bihar on the basis of the report of the District Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate and other materials came to a conclusion that the death of the husband of the petitioner occurred not in relation to active election duty and, therefore, the application of this petitioner was rejected for grant of ex-gratia vide order dated 01.03.2017. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. Sarva Deo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for ex-gratia payment and expenses incurred on the treatment of the husband only on the ground that the duty discharged by the husband of the petitioner was not active election duty. In other words, the distinction was drawn by the respondents in active election duty and other election duty. The report of the Election Officer and the District Election Officer, which was the basis for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for ex-gratia is indicative of the fact that the Officers of the State of Bihar instead of adopting pragmatic approach adopted most conservative and narrow approach in consideration of the case of the petitioner and they have rejected the application for grant of ex-gratia notwithstanding the fact that they have admitted the fact that the husband of the petitioner was engaged in election related duty. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Election Officer and the District Election Officer have arbitrarily drawn distinction between the active Election Duty and other Election Duty. 10. Referring to the report of the Election Officer and the District Election Officer, learned counsel for the State submits that the duty performed by the husband of the petitioner does not fall in the category of active election duty and, therefore, the ex-gratia is not admissible. 11. Mr. Sidharth Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Election Commission submits that the Election Commission has taken the decision on the basis of the report submitted by the respondent officials of the District Administration. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the letter no. 5628 dated 29.09.2015, which was addressed to all the District Election Officers-cum-District Magistrate, Bihar. In the letter dated 29.09.2015, the District Election Officers were directed to submit recommendation for grant of ex-gratia in the manner indicated in the letter dated 29.09.2015. 12. In the aforesaid letter dated 29.09.2015, Item no.6 of the requirement is clear recommendation of the District Election Officer in Papatra-I, which was lacking in this case and therefore there is no infirmity in the decision of the Election Commission rejecting the claim for grant of ex-gratia amount. 13. 12. In the aforesaid letter dated 29.09.2015, Item no.6 of the requirement is clear recommendation of the District Election Officer in Papatra-I, which was lacking in this case and therefore there is no infirmity in the decision of the Election Commission rejecting the claim for grant of ex-gratia amount. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Election Process commence with the notification of the Election and after commencing of the Election process, the husband of the petitioner was issued first appointment letter, which was indicative of the fact that he was engaged in election related process/duty. 14. The scheme of ex-gratia in connection with election duty was introduced having regard to the risk involved in discharge of election duty. It is one of the social security measure adopted by the respondents to provide relief to the family members of the deceased, who died in discharge of election related duty. The scheme of social security measure is construed in a liberal manner to extend the benefit and not to adopt narrow meaning of the scheme to defeat the benefit. 15. From the materials available on the record, it is evident that the death of the husband of the petitioner is not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner was engaged in connection with the election duty. The distinction drawn by the respondents to reject the claim of the petitioner is based on the finner distinction between the active election and other election duty. The respondents while considering the case of the petitioner has noted in so many words that the husband of the petitioner was engaged in election duty. He was involved in distribution of Voters awareness pamphlet, which is also the responsibility in connection with fair election. To ensure distributing Voters awareness pamphlet in the election process. According to this Court is one of the most important responsibility in connection with fair election process, yet the respondents have ignored the process of educating the people and respondents submitted that the petitioner’s husband was not engaged in the active election duty and therefore not entitled to grant of ex-gratia. 16. In the opinion of this Court, the approach of the respondents is not in tune with the construction of welfare scheme, which requires liberal construction, to the contrary they have adopted most conservative and narrow approach and defeated the claim of the petitioner. 16. In the opinion of this Court, the approach of the respondents is not in tune with the construction of welfare scheme, which requires liberal construction, to the contrary they have adopted most conservative and narrow approach and defeated the claim of the petitioner. 17. The action of the respondents, in the totality of the facts situation, is unreasonable and is not in tune with the object of welfare scheme. Accordingly, the Court has no hesitation in holding the action of the respondents unsustainable. The decision, which is primarily based on the report of the District Magistrate is unsustainable, as the District Magistrate-cum-the District Election Officer and the Election Officer, whose prime responsibility was to inform about the accidental death during election duty have misconstrued the scheme of the election duty and in their narrow consideration the activities of the husband of the petitioner was not related to active election duty and based on such report the election commission has taken the decision rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 18. The Court as indicated herienabove does not approve the report of the Election Officer, which was the basis of the District Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate to forward the case of the petitioner for appropriate decision by the Election Commission. 19. Since the Election Commission has relied upon the decision of the District Election Officer and as such the decision of the Election Commission dated 01.03.2017 suffers from the same vice. It is accordingly quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case afresh treating the responsibility discharged by the husband of the petitioner as Election related duty and take fresh decision in the matter of grant of ex-gratia and also for payment of expenses incurred in treatment of the husband of the petitioner. 20. Necessary fresh decision in this regard may be taken by the respondents Election Commission within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 21. With the aforesaid, the writ application stands disposed of.