ORDER : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner by way of this writ petition has prayed as under:- "Hence prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and further pleased to (i) modify the impugned order dated 17.3.2016 (Annexure-9), and (ii) further pleased to direct the respondents to release ex-gratia amount of Rs. 20.00 lacs in terms of Rule 75 (2) (b) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 to the petitioner alongwith interest from the date of the death of the husband of the petitioner @ 9% per annum, and (iii) further pleased to direct the respondents to grant special pension award to the petitioner in terms of Rule 109 read with Rule 111 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 with interest on the arrears of pension @9% per annum, and (iv) further pleased to award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's husband was holding the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector and while undergoing Promotion Cadre Course (PCC) for which he had been sent by his superiors, suffered severe heart attack and expired. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner's husband died while on duty, she was entitled to receive ex-gratia amount of Rs. 20 lac as per Rule 75(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Pension Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1996") as well as special pensionary award in terms of Rules 109, 110 & 111 of the Rules of 1996. 3. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by this court in the case of Smt. Rameshwari Devi Versus The State of Rajasthan & Others, SBCWP No. 2072/2015 and connected writ petitions decided on 31.5.2017 to submit that the said issue has already been examined by this court. The judgment has been upheld by the Division Bench in SAW No. 1539/2017 decided on 27.11.2017. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the case of Rameshwari Devi (supra) was distinguishable from the case of the petitioner as the petitioner's husband expired after the amendment was introduced in Rules 109, 110 & 111 of the Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 8.9.2015. The petitioner's case would be now covered only as per the amended Rules for the purpose of grant of special pensionary award. The petitioner's case would be now covered only as per the amended Rules for the purpose of grant of special pensionary award. So far as the claim made by the petitioner under Rule 75(2)(b) is concerned, it is submitted that same shall also not be applicable. 5. I have considered the submissions. 6. Rule 75(2)(b) of the unamended Rules of 1996 reads as under:- "[(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 lakhs in each individual case.]" 7. The amended Rules 109, 110 & 111 of the Rules of 1996, reads as under:- "[109. Applicability. - This chapter shall apply to the following categories of Government servants on pensionable establishment, whether temporary or permanent. - (i) Police Personnel whether in regular or irregular Units, including class-IV servant, followers and other non combatant staff attached to police force and Rajasthan Armed Constabulary upto rank of Commandant and Superintendent of Police (other than Indian Police Service Officers) and officials working as Executive Magistrate during Law and Order situations (other than All India Services Officers) who, - (a) die while on duty, due to act of violence by terrorists, dacoits, criminals, anti-social elements including bomb blasts in public places or in course of conformation with mob or crowd during agitation, riot or disturbance; or (b) die while on duty, due to a result of attack by or during action against extremists, antisocial elements, etc. (ii) Personnel of Preventive or Enforcement branches of Excise, Mining, Forest (other than Indian Forest Service Officers) and Transport Department who charged with duty of enforcement and killed or die as a result of injury sustained while undertaking raids. Note. - The benefit under these rules shall be restricted only to those cases where the death is directly caused in actual operation. The following illustrations are for guidelines of sanctioning authorities to determine whether this provision is attracted or not. In case of any doubt, cases may be referred to Finance Department:- Illustration-1. Note. - The benefit under these rules shall be restricted only to those cases where the death is directly caused in actual operation. The following illustrations are for guidelines of sanctioning authorities to determine whether this provision is attracted or not. In case of any doubt, cases may be referred to Finance Department:- Illustration-1. - Officers of Police or Excise department proceed to carry out a raid. If on the way, any member of the team meets with an accident while travelling in a public/private/official vehicle or otherwise, the family shall not be allowed the benefit under this chapter as the injury/death in such a case is not due to any actual operation. However, if any officer/member of the raid party gets killed/injured as a result of attack by members of the opposite party, family of such member of raid party shall be entitled to the benefits under this chapter. Illustration-II. - A team of Police/Rajasthan Armed Constabulary (RAC) is deployed on duty during agitations. The agitation does not turn violent but the civil servant dies because of, say, heart failure, and not due to any attack by the crowed. The widow of such a civil servant shall not be entitled to the benefits under this chapter. However, where a team of civil servants including Police personnel are deployed to contain an agitation by extremists, etc., and death of any civil servant takes place as a result of violence during such an agitation, the widow of the deceased shall be entitled to the benefits under this chapter:] [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 (other than Indian Police Service Officer) and officials working as Executive Magistrate (other than All India Services Officers) who while in service are killed or die under any of the circumstances mentioned in clause (i) of Rule 109; (b) Personnel of Preventive or Enforcement branches of Excise, Mining, Forest (other than Indian Forest Service Officers) and Transport Department who while in service are killed or die under the circumstance mentioned in clause (ii) of Rule 109.] [111. Amount of Award. - Subject to the other provisions of this Chapter, the amount of Award and concessions admissible under this Chapter shall be as follows:- (i) Death Gratuity as admissible under Chapter V-B of these rules. Amount of Award. - Subject to the other provisions of this Chapter, the amount of Award and concessions admissible under this Chapter shall be as follows:- (i) Death Gratuity as admissible under Chapter V-B of these rules. (ii) If the Government servant is survived by the widow/widower, she/he shall be entitled to family pension equal to the emoluments last drawn by the deceased Government servant. The said family pension shall be payable upto the date when the deceased would have attained the age of superannuation had he survived or her/his remarriage whichever is earlier, thereafter normal family pension as per Chapter V-C of these rules shall be payable. In case the widow/widower got married after wards, normal family pension shall be discontinued. (iii) In the case of Government servants, who expired before 1.1.2006, 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. (iv) Children of the deceased shall be entitled to the facility of free education in Government Schools and Colleges within the Rajasthan State, to the same extent as permissible to the children of law paid Government Servants, according to rules thereon. (v) The family of the deceased shall be paid a sum of Rs. 10,000 for meeting expenses on the funeral rites of the deceased Government servant. (vi) In the event of remarriage/death of the widow/widower, as the case may be, the family pension shall be allowed to the eligible, other member of family at the normal rates of family pension on the conditions laid down under Chapter V-C of these rules.]" 8. Apparently, Rule 109(i)(a) mentions circumstances which police personnel would be entitled for ex gratia payment. Thus a police personnel who dies while on duty or dies due to act of violence by terrorists or dacoits or criminals or anti-social elements or dies in bomb blasts in public places or in course of conformation with the mob or crowd during agitation, riot or disturbance or due to the circumstances as mentioned in Clause (b) to Rule 109(i), benefit of ex gratia would be released. The word "Comma" has been used as "Or" (see Principle of Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh IIIrd Edition). 9. The interpretation of rule has to be with the purpose sought to be made by the rule making authority. The instances mentioned in Rule 109(i) are illustrative and there can be circumstances of different nature where a person may die while on duty, duty has already been defined under the Rajasthan Service Rules to mean as under:- "[(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.] Exception: In case of taking over charge of District Treasuries at Jodhpur & Jaipur the maximum days shall, for the purpose of this clause be 7 days and for other District Treasuries 3 days. (b) Government may issue orders declaring that in the following circumstances, or in circumstances similar thereto, a Government servant may be treated as duty. (i) During a course of instruction or training in India." In view of the above, the Rule has to be read in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to receive special pensionary award in terms of Rule 109 of the Rules of 1996 and also receive ex gratia amount in terms of Rule 75(2). It is to be noticed that even as per new amendment in the Rules of 1996 which has been introduced in 2019, Rule 75(2) reads as under:- "[(2) The amount of ex gratia grant to the family of a government servant who dies in one of the circumstances mentioned in sub-rule (1) shall be as under:- S.No. Clause/Rule Amount of ex gratia grant 1. Under Clause (a) to (d) of sub-rule (1) Rs. 20 Lac 2. Under clause (e) of sub-rule (1),- (i) Unfortunate event of death of the official, (ii) If the death is unfortunate caused due to any violent acts of extremist or unsocial elements like, road mines, bomb blasts, armed attacks, etc. Rs. 20 Lac Rs. 30 Lac Provided that no extra relief shall be granted from sundry government sources to families of deceased Government servants.]" 10. Rule 75(2) of the Rules of 1996 mentions grant of Rs. Rs. 20 Lac Rs. 30 Lac Provided that no extra relief shall be granted from sundry government sources to families of deceased Government servants.]" 10. Rule 75(2) of the Rules of 1996 mentions grant of Rs. 20 lacs as ex-gratia on account of unfortunate death of an official. Thus, any death which may occur while in service would result in granting of ex-gratia amount of Rs. 20 lac as on today. However, so far as the present case is concerned, it is to be governed by the Rule which was existing prior to 2019 but thereto under Rule 75(2), the case falls and the petitioner is, therefore, entitled to receive ex gratia amount of Rs. 20 lac as well as special pensionary award on account of death caused to her husband while on duty. Similar, view has been taken by this court in the aforesaid case (supra) while interpreting Rule 75(2)(b) of the Rules of 1996 as under:- 12. While he was under going outdoor 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) instead 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 outdoor 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 because 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. 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 because 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. 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 lifespan. 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." 11. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed and the amount shall now be released alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the death of the petitioner's husband. The said amount shall be released positively within a period of one month from today, failing which the petitioner would be entitled to file contempt petition without further notice.