JUDGMENT : (Hon'ble Dr. Justice S.N. Pathak, J.) : Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to extend the benefits of death-cum-retiral benefits as well as ex-gratia amount of compensation and appointment on compassionate ground. 3. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The husband of the petitioner, Puna Thakur was appointed on the post of Home Guard by the District Commandant, Home Guard, Hazaribagh on 14.03.1979. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner started discharging his duties diligently and to the best of his ability and no complaint whatsoever was made against the petitioner by the respondent-authorities. It is the case of the petitioner that on 28.11.2015, while her husband was returning from election duty, he got sudden attack of paralysis and hence, he was admitted in hospital for treatment where he remained for few months but unfortunately he died on 13.03.2016. After death of her husband, the petitioner was facing difficulties in looking after her children and hence, she represented before the District Commandant, Koderma on 16.03.2016 for payment of death-cum-retiral benefits and thereafter submitted several representations reiterating the same prayer. However, when her grievance was not redressed, she approached this Court by way of W.P.(S). No. 4287 of 2017 and this Court vide order dated 28.01.2019, disposed of the said writ petition directing the petitioner to file fresh representation upon which respondents were directed to pass order in accordance with law. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation before the respondent No. 4 in detail requesting therein to grant the death-cum-retiral benefits to the petitioner. Upon receipt of such representation, the respondent No. 4 issued letter dated 07.03.2019 to the petitioner and denied the claim of petitioner without assigning any reason and rather, relied upon the frivolous report of respondent No. 5. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances. 5. Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled for death-cum-retiral benefits as well as compassionate appointment and also entitled for receiving ex-gratia compensation. Learned counsel submits that in catena of decisions, this Court has passed order for granting the benefits of ex-gratia compensation and also for providing compassionate appointment. 5. Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled for death-cum-retiral benefits as well as compassionate appointment and also entitled for receiving ex-gratia compensation. Learned counsel submits that in catena of decisions, this Court has passed order for granting the benefits of ex-gratia compensation and also for providing compassionate appointment. Learned counsel further argues that earlier the petitioner has approached this Court and a specific direction was given to dispose of her representation, however, though her representation has been disposed of but the benefits have not been extended. Learned counsel submits that suffice it would be if a direction be given to the respondents to consider his case for death-cum-retiral benefits and also for payment of ex-gratia compensation and also for compassionate appointment to the legal heirs. It has been further argued that Annexure-13 is not tenable in the eyes of law and is fit to be quashed and set aside. 6. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner places heavy reliance on the judgment passed in case of Most. Taruna Devi v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2007) 1 JLJR 282 . 7. On the other hand, Ms. Shalini Shahdeo, learned counsel representing the respondents by vehemently opposing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is apparent from impugned order dated 07.03.2019, Annexure-13 to the writ petition that the husband of petitioner was deputed on election duty for 13 days. After election was over on 05.01.2016, the husband of petitioner returned from the election duty. Thereafter, on 13.03.2016 i.e. after about two months he died. Since the husband of petitioner was not on duty at the time of death, the petitioner is not entitled for any benefits. It has been submitted that husband of petitioner was deputed only for 13 days in election duty and he was not a permanent employee and payment to him was made only for the period he worked, hence the petitioner is not entitled for any benefits as prayed by her. Justifying the impugned order dated 07.03.2019 learned counsel submits that since petitioner is not entitled for any benefits, rightly, the impugned order has been issued. 8. Justifying the impugned order dated 07.03.2019 learned counsel submits that since petitioner is not entitled for any benefits, rightly, the impugned order has been issued. 8. Having gone through the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition for the following facts and reasons: (I) Husband of petitioner was not a regular appointee in the Home Guard Department. Neither he was appointed pursuant to any public advertisement nor he was paid regular salary. (II) Husband of petitioner was volunteer of the Home Guard, who after training was deputed at several places. (III) In the instant case, it appears that husband of petitioner was deputed in the Koderma district for election for 13 days only and after lapse of almost two months returning from election duty he died and as such, petitioner is not entitled for any benefits. 9. There is no illegality or any infirmity in the impugned order and the judgment relied upon by the petitioner is distinguishable and of no help to him as in that case the employee was killed in a road accident while on duty whereas in the instant case husband of petitioner died two months after being relieved from election duty assigned to him. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed.