JUDGMENT : 1. Both these appeals are arising out of a common judgment dated 20.11.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9864/2016 (Smt. Meera Kunwar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), and therefore, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. These special appeals have been preferred by the State as well as writ petitioner claiming the following reliefs: Appeal No. 988/2019: "(i) It is humbly prayed that the impugned order dated 20.11.2017 passed by this hon'ble High Court may kindly quashed in totality; (ii) That by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the writ petition bearing S.B. C.W. Petition No. 9864/2016 may kind be dismissed. (iii) Any other relief to which the appellant is entitled, may be granted in his favour. (iv) The DB Appeal may be allowed with costs." Appeal No. 1527/2018: "It is, therefore, prayed that this Appeal may very kindly be allowed and writ petition may kindly be allowed and respondents may kindly be directed to pay arrears of special pension award from the date of death of husband constable dying on duty till date of payment with interest and impugned order dated 20.11.2017 may very kindly be set aside with costs." 3. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that Smt. Meera Kunwar, appellant/writ petitioner in Appeal No. 988/2019 is the widow of Late Panna Singh, who served the respondents as Constable. Appellant/writ petitioner Smt. Meera Kunwar is seeking special pension, as her husband died while on duty, after serving as Constable in the respondent/Department from 10.08.1979 to 01.12.1992. Late husband of widow Smt. Meera Kunwar was serving as Constable in the Traffic Branch and was going for serving a warrant, when he met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries on 01.12.1992. 4. Vide the impugned order, the prayer for grant of special pension made by Smt. Meera Kunwar has been allowed, while taking into consideration the judgments rendered by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Smt. Savita Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1668/1987, decided on 11.01.1990) and State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Mst. Madhu Bala (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 591/2015, decided on 01.08.2016). 5. Mr. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1668/1987, decided on 11.01.1990) and State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Mst. Madhu Bala (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 591/2015, decided on 01.08.2016). 5. Mr. Manish Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submits that rule in vogue for grant of special pension in case of the writ petitioner is Rule 268I read with Rules 268J, 268K, 268L and 268M of the Rajasthan Service Rules, which disentitles Smt. Meera Kunwar for such pension. The said Rules read as under:- 268I. Applicability.- This chapter shall apply to the following categories of Government servants on pensionable establishment whether temporary or permanent who are in service on the 5th day of August, 1965 or who enter service on or after that date- (i) Police personnel, whether in Regular or Irregular Units including R.A.C. up to the rank of Commandant and Superintendent of Police (other than I.P.S. Officers) who die as a result of encounter with dacoits. (ii) Police personnel, whether in Regular or Irregular Units including R.A.C. up to the rank of Superintendent of Police (other than I.P.S. Officers) and Class IV servants followers and other non-combatant staff attached to the Police Force, who are killed while on duty as a result of enemy action (including action by paratroopers and infiltrators from Pakistan). (iii) Police personnel, whether in regular or irregular units including R.A.C. upto the rank of Commandant and Superintendent of Police (other than I.P.S. Officers) who die as a result of encounter with criminals or in the course of confrontation with mobs of crows during agitation-riot or civil commotion or communal disturbances etc. (iv) 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. 268J. Applicability of Award.- Award at the rates specified in 268K shall be granted under this chapter to the family of: (a) Police personnel who while in service on or after the 5th day of August, 1965 are killed or die under any of the circumstances mentioned in the relevant clauses of Rules 268I; (b) Personnel of Preventive branch of the Excise Department who while in service on or after 18th day of April, 1988 are killed or die under the circumstances mentioned in Clause (iv) of Rule 268I. 268K. 268K. Amount of Award.- Subject to the order provisions of this Chapter the amount of Award and concessions admissible under this Chapter will be as follows: (i) Gratuity equal to emoluments for eight months. (ii) Family pension equal to the monthly emoluments which the deceased was drawing at the time of his death payable upto the date when the deceased would have attained the age of superannuation had he survived; Provided that where the deceased officer happens to be a member of a Contributory Provident Fund the pensionary equivalent of bonus and special contribution calculated at the age on last birth-day, given in Appendix II Chapter VIII of the Jodhpur Government Service Regulations will be deducted from amount of family pension payable under Clause (ii). (iii) Family pension equal to half of the maximum of the scale i.e. which existed at the time of death and in which pay was being drawn by the deceased in substantive, officiating or temporary capacity from the date family pension ceases to be admissible under Clause (ii) above. (iv) Children of the deceased shall be entitled to the facility of free education in Government Schools and Colleges within Rajasthan, to the extent as permissible to the children of low paid Government Servants, according to rules thereon. (v) The family of the deceased shall be entitled to expenses incurred on the funeral rites of the deceased upto an amount of Rs. 100/-. 268L. For the purpose of this chapter.-(1) 'Family' will include the following relatives in order of precedence: (i) Widow, and if there are more than one widow the oldest surviving widow. (ii) Minor sons including step sons. (iii) Unmarried and widowed daughters, including step daughters. (iv) Adopted minor children. (v) Minor brothers and unmarried or widowed sisters. (vi) Father. (vii) Mother. (viii) Minor children of pre-deceased son. (2) Emoluments will mean pay as defined in Rule 7(24) plus dearness allowance (including dearness pay). 268M. Conditions of grant.-(1) The grant of Award under this Chapter shall be in lieu of all service pensionary benefits admissible under Chapter XXII, XXIII, XXIII-A and XXXIV. (2) The Award admissible under this Chapter will be payable to the member of a Officer's family in order of precedence given in Rule 268L(1). 268M. Conditions of grant.-(1) The grant of Award under this Chapter shall be in lieu of all service pensionary benefits admissible under Chapter XXII, XXIII, XXIII-A and XXXIV. (2) The Award admissible under this Chapter will be payable to the member of a Officer's family in order of precedence given in Rule 268L(1). (3) The Award admissible under clause (ii) and (iii) of rule 268K will cease in the case of a male member of the family on his attaining the age of 18 and in the case of a female member of the family on her marriage, re-marriage or living in circumstances equivalent to re-marriage. (4) The Award admissible under this Chapter is nontransferable except that in the event of remarriage (including living in circumstances equivalent to remarriage) or death of the widow, the Award admissible under clause (ii) and (iii) of rule 268-K shall be regranted to the person next lower in the order of precedence in rule 268-L(1)." 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that in the present case, since Constable Late Panna Singh, the husband of the appellant/writ petitioner died while on duty in the year 1992, therefore, the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 could not apply, and the field which shall govern the special pension awardable to Smt. Meera Kunwar would be Rule 268-I of the Rajasthan Service Rules, as quoted hereinabove. 7. A Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in Papu Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in RLW 2009 (2) Raj. 1059, wherein the judgment of Smt. Savita Yadav (supra) has been relied upon, has categorically dealt with the whole proposition. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:- "3. Mr. Anil Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact, the controversy involved in this writ petition is covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Savita Yadav v. State decided on 11.1.1990 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1668/1987 which judgment has been produced as Exhibit 10 along with the writ petition. He further submits that after the said Division Bench decision, a coordinate Single Bench allowed the writ petition in similar circumstances namely Smt. Vinod Kanwar v. State S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2254/1993 decided on 21.9.2001. He further submits that after the said Division Bench decision, a coordinate Single Bench allowed the writ petition in similar circumstances namely Smt. Vinod Kanwar v. State S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2254/1993 decided on 21.9.2001. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant extract including the extract of the Division Bench Judgment from the judgment of learned Single Judge in Vinod Kan war's case (supra). "2. The validity of these Rules was challenged before this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1668/1987 (Smt. Savita Yadav v. The State of Raj.). This Court held (sic! allowed) the said writ petition to the extent of introducing the word "while discharging their duties" after the words "killed or died" (in Rule 268-J). The relevant part of the order is extracted as follows:-- "We find force in the submissions with respect of Rule 268I and Rule 268J. As regards Rule 268I no distinction can be made when a police personnel is killed while on duty and when a police personnel is killed while on duty as a result of enemy action. Both die on duty so the benefit should be given to both whether they die on duty as a result of enemy action or they simply die while discharging duty without any enemy action. The said part of sub-rule (ii) of Rule 268-I appears to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore that deserves to be struck down. So far as Rule 268J is concerned that has to be read down so as to include police personnel who are killed or die while discharging their duty, so after the words 'killed or die' while discharging their duty should be read. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. This part of Sub-Rule (ii) of Rule 268I "As a result of enemy action including action by paratroopers and infiltrators from Pakistan" is struck down and the consequence thereof is the petitioner would be entitled to benefits as provided in Rule 268I of the Rajasthan Service Rules and the Rules 268-J is read down by introducing the word "while discharging their duty" after the words "killed or die". The State Government is, therefore, directed to give to the petitioner benefits as a result of striking down and reading down the Rules 268I and the Rule 268J. Sd/- M.C. Jain, Actg. C.J. Sd/- R.S. Verma, J." 3. The State Government is, therefore, directed to give to the petitioner benefits as a result of striking down and reading down the Rules 268I and the Rule 268J. Sd/- M.C. Jain, Actg. C.J. Sd/- R.S. Verma, J." 3. I am told that a Special Leave to Appeal filed by the State Government against the said judgment has been rejected by the Apex Court by order dated 7.1.1991. 4. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit as given in the aforesaid writ petition. 5. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The State of Rajasthan is directed to give the petitioner benefits as a result of striking down and reading down the Rules 268 I and Rule 268 J in the case of Smt. Savita Yadav (supra). She will be entitled to the higher pension with retrospective effect including the difference of pension, she has already received. This order shall be carried out within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. Sd/- (N.N. Mathur) J." 4. I have heard learned counsels at length and given my thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case and the judgment cited at the Bar. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant Rules 268-I, 268-J, 268-K, 268-L and 268-M from RSR here for ready reference: "CHAPTER XXIII-B Special Pensionary Awards 268I. Applicability.-This chapter shall apply to the following categories of Government servants on pensionable establishment whether temporary or permanent who are in service on the 5th day of August, 1965 or who enter service on or after that date-- (i) Police personnel, whether in Regular or Irregular Units including R.A.C. Up to the rank of Commandant and Superintendent of Police (other than I.P.S. Officers) who die as a result of encounter with dacoits, (ii) Police personnel, whether in Regular or Irregular Units including R.A.C. Up to the rank of Superintendent of Police (other than I.P.S. Officers) and Class IV servants followers and other non-combatant staff attached to the Police Force, who are killed while on duty as a result of enemy action (including action by paratroopers and infiltrators from Palkistan). (iii) Police personnel, whether in regular or irregular units including R.A.C. upto the rank of Commandant and Superintendent of Police (other than I.P.C. Officers) who die as a result of encounter with criminals or in the course of confrontation with mobs or crows during agitation-riot or civil commotion or communal disturbances etc. (iv) Personnel of Preventive Branch of the Excise Department upto the rank of exercise Officer (preventive) who are killed or die as a result of injury sustained while undertaking raids. 268J. Applicability of Award.-- Award at the rates specified in 268 K shall be granted under this chapter to the family of-- (a) Police personnel who while in service on or after the 5th day of August, 1965 are killed or die under any of the circumstances mentioned in the relevant clauses of Rules 268-I; (b) Personnel of Preventive branch of the Excise Department who while in service on or after 18th day of April, 1988 are killed or die under the circumstances mentioned in clause (iv) of Rule 268-I. 268K. 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) Gratuity equal to emoluments for eight months. (ii) Family pension equal to the monthly emoluments which the deceased was drawing at the time of his death payable upto the date when the deceased would have attained the age of superannuation had he survived; Provided that where the deceased officer happens to be a member of a Contributory Provident Fund the pensionary equivalent of bonus and special contribution calculated at the age on last birth-day, given in Appendix II Chapter VIII of the Jodhpur Government Service Regulations will be deducted from amount of family pension payable under clause (ii). (iii) Family pension equal to half of the maximum of the scale i.e. which existed at the time of death and in which pay was being drawn by the deceased in substantive, officiating or temporary capacity payable from the date family pension ceases to be admissible under clause (ii) above. (iv) Children of the deceased shall be entitled to the facility of free education in Government Schools and Colleges within Rajasthan, to the extent as permissible to the children of low paid Government Servants, according to rules there on. (iv) Children of the deceased shall be entitled to the facility of free education in Government Schools and Colleges within Rajasthan, to the extent as permissible to the children of low paid Government Servants, according to rules there on. (v) The family of the deceased shall be entitled to expresses incurred on the funeral rites of the deceased upto an amount of Rs. 100/-. 268L. For the purpose of this chapter-- (1) 'Family' will including the following relatives in order of precedence-- (i) Widow, and if there are more than one widow the oldest surviving widow. (ii) Minor sons including step sons. (iii) Unmarried and widowed daughters, including step daughters. (iv) Adopted minor children. (v) Minor brothers and unmarried or widowed sisters. (vi) Father. (vii) Mother (viii) Minor children of pre-deceased son. (2) Emoluments will means pay as defined in Rule 7(24) plus dearness allowance (including dearness pay). 268M. Conditions of grant.-- (1) The grant of Award under this Chapter shall be lieu of all service pensionary benefits admissible under Chapter XXII, XXIII, XXIII-A and XXIV. (2) The Award admissible under this Chapter will be payable to the member of a Officer's family in order of precedence given in rule 268-L(1). (3) The Award admissible under this Chapter is nontransferable except that in the event of remarriage (including living in circumstances equivalent to remarriage) or death of the widow, the Award admissible under clause (ii) and (iii) of rule 268-K shall be regranted to the person next lower in the order of precedence in rule 268-L(1);" Rule 268-N deals with the procedure, therefore, the same is not reproduced here. 5. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the Division Bench struck down the words "as a result of enemy action (including action by paratroopers and infiltrators from Pakistan)" from Rule 268 I and introduced or added the words, "while discharging their duty" after the words "killed or died" in Rule 268 J of RSR on the reasoning that "both die on duty so the benefit should be given to both whether they die on duty as a result of enemy action or they simply die while discharging duty without any enemy action", therefore, the learned counsel contends that the classification sought to be made for grant of special pensionary award depending upon the special circumstances when a police personnel dies or is killed while on duty, has been obliterated by the aforesaid Division Bench judgment and the said judgment having been upheld by the Apex Court, it is no more open to the respondents to contend otherwise and to say that the special pension will not be given to the police personnel, if he dies or is killed while on duty. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the Division Bench of this Court in Savita Devi Yadav's case (supra) has held that a police personnel, who dies or is killed "while on duty" irrespective of the circumstances whether an enemy action or otherwise or in a simple investigation duty in clause (2) of Rule 268-I, have to be treated at per and a police personnel dying or being killed while doing his duty, his family is entitled to special pension under Rule 268K of RSR, then it is not permissible for the respondent State to contend in the present case that the case of the petitioner's husband who died in an accident in the mid night between 16.12.1991 and 17.12.1997 while he was assigned a particular duty to go on a particular site as per Exhibit 1 Rojnamcha entry, that the petitioner would not be entitled to special pensionary award. It appears that the reasoning given by the Division Bench was with specific observation and premise of treating the police personnels while on duty and those while not on duty only as the permissible classifications for the purpose of grant of normal pension or special pension. It appears that the reasoning given by the Division Bench was with specific observation and premise of treating the police personnels while on duty and those while not on duty only as the permissible classifications for the purpose of grant of normal pension or special pension. The first category of police personnels dying or being killed while on duty were entitled to special pensionary Awards and others who died while not on duty were entitled to normal or half of the special pension under the relevant Rules. It is true that the special circumstances have been enumerated in favour clauses of Section 268-I of RSR namely encounter with dacoits in clause (i) enemy action in clause (ii) agitation-riots in clause (iii) raids by exercise party in clause (iv) and Rule 268-J also refers to the words "under any of the circumstances mentioned in the relevant clauses of Rules 268-I" to make Chapter XXII-B itself applicable for grant of special pensions but in view of the said classification as far as clause (ii) is concerned having been struck down by the Division Bench of this Court, it appears to the Court that the classification permissible is only between "while on duty" and "while not on duty". Since the Division Bench clearly stated in its judgment that irrespective of enemy action, if a police personnel dies while on duty, both have to be treated as same, therefore, the special words relating to special circumstances contained in clause (ii) of Rule 268-I were struck down by the Division Bench. Likewise irrespective of special circumstances enumerated in other clauses of Rule 268-I in clause (i), (iii) and (iv) also, a police personnel dying or being killed while on duty would be entitled special pension under Chapter XXIII-B Rule 268-K of RSR. The aforesaid conclusion by this Court appears to be the most reasonable conclusion in view of the Division Bench judgment which is binding on this Court in Single Bench. It can hardly be disputed and controverted by the learned counsel for the State that the husband of the petitioner, ASI Shankar Lal died while on duty. The aforesaid conclusion by this Court appears to be the most reasonable conclusion in view of the Division Bench judgment which is binding on this Court in Single Bench. It can hardly be disputed and controverted by the learned counsel for the State that the husband of the petitioner, ASI Shankar Lal died while on duty. Even though he died in a road accident, as would be clear from the Rojnamcha entries in Exhibit 1, it cannot be disputed nor it has been done so in the reply filed by the respondents State that at that particular moment the husband of the petitioner, ASI Shankar Lal was on duty having been assigned the same at 11:30 PM on 16.12.1991 vide entry No. 675 in Exhibit 1. Since the facts are not much in dispute, this Court has reason to draw the conclusion that the husband of the petitioner died while on duty and, therefore, the case of the petitioner would fall within the ambit and scope of Rule 268I read with Rule 268-J entitling her to special pensionary benefits in terms of Rule 268-K of RSR. 9. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to give the arrears of pension computing the same under Rule 268-K of the Act with effect from the date of death of the husband of the petitioner on 17.12.1991 till date within a period of 3 months from today. The said arrears will bear interest at the rate of 12% per annum, if not paid within three months from today. The petitioner shall be further entitled to regular special pension as aforesaid on month to month basis in accordance with Rules 268-K at the rate of monthly emoluments which the deceased ASI Shankar Lal was drawing at the time of his death, with further revision in pay scale and other benefits, had he remained in service till his age of superannuation." 8. According to the aforesaid precedent law, it is clear that the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, while rendering the judgment of Smt. Savita Yadav (supra), read down Rule 268-I of the Rajasthan Service Rules, holding the police personnel killed or died on duty entitled for special pension. According to the aforesaid precedent law, it is clear that the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, while rendering the judgment of Smt. Savita Yadav (supra), read down Rule 268-I of the Rajasthan Service Rules, holding the police personnel killed or died on duty entitled for special pension. The portion of Rule 268-I(ii), "as a result of enemy action (including action by paratroopers and infiltrators from Pakistan)" was struck down by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, and the same had attained finality right upto the Hon'ble Apex Court. The judgment of Papu Devi (supra) had also attained finality right upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Rule position is thus clear. 9. In view of the above, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference on merits. However, the same is modified only to the extent that widow Smt. Meera Kunwar (appellant/writ petitioner) shall be entitled for special pensionary award from the date of death of her husband i.e. 01.12.1992, which shall be paid to her within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the appellant/writ petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the arrears, until the date of actual payment. 10. Accordingly, appeal No. 1527/2018 of the writ petitioner/appellant is allowed to the extent indicated above and appeal No. 988/2019 of the State is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.