ORDER : 1. By way of filing the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the issuance of an appropriate writ, order, or direction commanding the respondents to disburse the ex gratia amount due to her, along with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the widow of Late Shri Jog Singh, Police Constable No. 712, who was posted in the First Battalion, Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, Mandore Road, Jodhpur. The deceased constable died on 27.01.2004 due to a road accident that occurred while he was performing his official duties. The circumstances of the accident are recorded in the FIR and his death certificate has also been placed on record. 2.1. The respondent department subsequently recognized the petitioner’s husband as a “Martyr” and included his name at Serial No. 2 in the official list issued during a ceremony held in 2016. This recognition is reflected in the communication dated 07.09.2016 placed on record. 2.2. Under the applicable pension rules, the widow of a police personnel who dies in the line of duty is entitled to special pension as well as ex gratia benefits. However, the petitioner is an illiterate woman who was unaware of these legal provisions and could not submit an application earlier. 2.3. After learning of her entitlement, the petitioner issued a notice for demand of justice dated 21.09.2020 seeking special pension under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, and ex gratia compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 under Rule 75(2)(b), along with interest at 12% per annum. Despite the notice, the petitioner has not been granted special pension or even normal pension and has therefore been compelled to approach this Court seeking appropriate relief by way of filing the instant Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the widow of Late Shri Jog Singh, Police Constable No. 712, who was serving in the First Battalion of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, Mandore Road, Jodhpur, and who sustained fatal injuries in a road accident on 27.01.2004 while discharging his official duties. The factual matrix surrounding the incident stands substantiated through the FIR, placed on record as Annexure–1, and the death certificate, annexed as Annexure–2. The factual matrix surrounding the incident stands substantiated through the FIR, placed on record as Annexure–1, and the death certificate, annexed as Annexure–2. In acknowledgment of the nature of his sacrifice, the respondent department officially accorded him the status of “Martyr” and included his name at Serial No. 2 in the list published during the ceremony held in 2016, as evidenced by the communication dated 07.09.2016 (Annexure–3). Under the statutory framework of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, the widow of a police personnel who dies in the course of duty is entitled to special pension and ex gratia benefits as a matter of statutory right. The petitioner, being an illiterate woman with no awareness of her legal entitlements, was unable to approach the authorities earlier. Upon gaining knowledge of her rights, she served a notice for demand of justice on 21.09.2020, seeking disbursement of special pension and ex gratia compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 under Rule 75(2)(b), along with consequential interest. Despite the service of notice, no steps have been taken by the respondents to process even ordinary family pension, much less the legally mandated special pension and ex gratia amount, thereby compelling the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. 3.1. It is further urged that the death of the petitioner’s husband occurred indubitably in the line of duty, thus attracting the statutory mandate of the 1996 Pension Rules. In State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Urmila Devi , 1996 (3) WLC (Raj.) 703 this Court unequivocally held that once the death is established to be duty-related, the dependents acquire an enforceable and non- derogable right to special pension. Counsel further submits that the department’s own recognition of the deceased as a “Martyr” precludes the State from withholding consequential pensionary and ex gratia benefits. This legal position finds reinforcement in Savita Yadav v. State of Rajasthan (DBCWP No. 1668/1987 ), wherein the Court held that acknowledgment of duty-related death obligates the State to process all statutory benefits with expedition. Given the petitioner’s illiteracy and inability to comprehend procedural requirements, the respondents were duty-bound to extend pensionary benefits suo motu, as held in Pappu Devi v. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No. 3087/1996 decided on 23.10.2008), which mandates departmental initiation of benefits in cases of death in service. Given the petitioner’s illiteracy and inability to comprehend procedural requirements, the respondents were duty-bound to extend pensionary benefits suo motu, as held in Pappu Devi v. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No. 3087/1996 decided on 23.10.2008), which mandates departmental initiation of benefits in cases of death in service. Any purported delay in the petitioner’s representation cannot extinguish her statutory entitlements, a principle affirmed in Smt. Suraj Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No. 985/2013 decided on 11.11.2013) , wherein the Court held that delay occasioned by illiteracy does not defeat legally vested pensionary rights. The continued non-release of ex gratia compensation under Rule 75(2)(b), amounting to Rs. 20,00,000, is in clear contravention of the statutory mandate, especially in light of Samda Devi v. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No. 11241/2010 decided on 03.11.2011), which held that such compensation must be disbursed promptly upon confirmation of duty-related death. Further, the withholding of even ordinary family pension violates the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, as declared in Smt. Paras Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No. 11423/2009 decided on 03.11.2011), wherein denial of pension to a widow was held to be unconstitutional. 3.2. In these circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow the present writ petition and direct the respondents to forthwith release the ex gratia amount in favour of the petitioner along with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice and equity. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the writ petition is fundamentally misconceived. Under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 specifically Rule 75 of the Rules 1996, the petitioner must prove that the deceased died “on duty,” which the record disproves; he had left the barracks for personal errands. The honorary “Martyr” designation creates no statutory entitlement, and the authorities cited concern deaths occurring during actual duty, unlike the present case. Constitutional claims under Articles 14, 16, and 300-A are likewise untenable, as no vested right or comparable precedent exists. Since Rule 75(2) grants ex gratia benefits only for deaths on duty, the petitioner has no legal basis for special pension or the claimed Rs. 20 lakhs; the petition merits dismissal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on the record. 5.1. Since Rule 75(2) grants ex gratia benefits only for deaths on duty, the petitioner has no legal basis for special pension or the claimed Rs. 20 lakhs; the petition merits dismissal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on the record. 5.1. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, documentary evidence, and submissions advanced by learned counsel on both sides, the Court is satisfied that the petitioner has made out a clear and indisputable case for the grant of special pension and ex gratia benefits under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. 5.1. It is an admitted fact on record substantiated through the FIR (Annexure–1), death certificate (Annexure–2), and departmental records that Late Shri Jog Singh, Police Constable No. 712, sustained fatal injuries in a road accident on 27.01.2004 while discharging his official duties. Further, the respondent department formally recognized the deceased as a “Martyr” and included his name at Serial No.2 in the official list published during the 2016 ceremony (Annexure–3). This recognition is not a mere ceremonial designation but a substantive acknowledgment of duty-related death, which, by itself, engages the statutory mandate for pensionary benefits. 5.2. The Court notes that the petitioner, being illiterate and unaware of her legal rights, could not earlier claim the benefits. In such circumstances, jurisprudence is clear that delay caused by illiteracy or lack of legal knowledge does not defeat a dependent’s statutory rights. This principle finds support in Pappu Devi (Supra) ) and Smt. Suraj Kanwar (Supra) , wherein the Court held that departmental initiation of benefits is the statutory duty of the State, and delay in representation by the dependent cannot extinguish her enforceable rights. 5.3. The contention of the respondents that the deceased was not “on duty” is contradicted by the contemporaneous record and their own recognition of him as a martyr. In State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Urmila Devi , 1996 (3) WLC (Raj.) 703, this Court held that once a government servant’s death is established to be duty-related, the dependent acquires an indefeasible and non- derogable right to special pension. This principle is further reinforced in Savita Yadav (Supra), wherein acknowledgment of duty-related death was held to obligate the State to process all statutory benefits without delay. 5.4. This principle is further reinforced in Savita Yadav (Supra), wherein acknowledgment of duty-related death was held to obligate the State to process all statutory benefits without delay. 5.4. Rule 75(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, mandates the payment of ex gratia compensation upon confirmation of duty-related death. The respondents’ inaction, even after receipt of the notice dated 21.09.2020, amounts to dereliction of statutory duty, compounded by the denial of ordinary family pension, thereby violating the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, as held in Smt. Paras Kanwar (Supra). Further, in Samda Devi (Supra) , the Court directed prompt disbursement of ex gratia compensation in cases of duty-related death, emphasizing the need for expeditious compliance. 6. In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner’s claim is legally tenable and equitable. The writ petition is therefore allowed with the following directions:- a. The respondents shall forthwith sanction and disburse in favour of the petitioner the special pension and all consequential pensionary benefits under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. b. The respondents shall release the ex gratia amount of Rs. 20,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) under Rule 75(2)(b) without further delay. c. All arrears, including pensionary dues and the ex gratia amount, shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum, payable from the date the entitlement accrued until actual realization. d. Compliance shall be ensured within three months from the date of this order. 7. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any shall stand disposed of.