JUDGMENT : ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J. I.A. No. 9982 of 2018 1. The present interlocutory application is for condonation of delay of 260 days in filing this appeal. 2. Having regard and reasons given in paras 9, 14 and 15 of the application, we are satisfied that the appellant has made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The instant application is accordingly allowed. L.P.A. No. 90 of 2018 3. The learned First Court in the judgment under appeal has dismissed the plea of the writ petitioner for compensation arising out of Accident Compensation Scheme, 1988 of the Bihar State Electricity Board. The writ petitioner is the widow of a deceased employee Jharkhand State Electricity Board (at present known as Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited). We are apprised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the said scheme at all material times applied to similarly situated employees in the State of Jharkhand. The said scheme has been framed in exercise of power conferred under Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The deceased husband of the writ petitioner died discharging his duty while being under employment of the erstwhile Jharkhand State Electricity Board. Now Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited is defending appeal as successor to the said Board. Late husband of the petitioner had been sent by his employer for inspecting certain materials at M/s Indian Rare Earth Limited, Rare Earths Division, Udyogamandal, Ernakulam Kerala in the capacity of senior chemist. He was serving in that post in the erstwhile State Electricity Board. While returning from Kerala after discharging his assigned duty, he suffered from A/C Intra Cerebral Haematoma, which in common parlance is referred to as “stroke”. He died at the Kerala Institute of Medical Sciences at Thiruvamanthapuram. The writ petitioner as his widow sought compensation in terms of the aforesaid scheme. As per Clause 1 (ii) of the said scheme, the same covered only those employees of the erstwhile Board, who died in an accident in discharge of duties assigned to them in authorised manner by the competent authority. 4. No specific case has been made out that the death of the deceased employee was on account of any accident. On the other hand, Mr. 4. No specific case has been made out that the death of the deceased employee was on account of any accident. On the other hand, Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the appellant contends that suddenness of the ailment by itself ought to be treated as accident to bring the unfortunate death of his client husband within the ambit of the said scheme for getting compensation. 5. The learned First Court has observed and held:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has however endeavoured to establish that the word ‘accident’ would also mean death in course of discharge of duty due to any other medical reasons. Reliance has been placed upon the Clause 2(h) of the Scheme 1988 to mean that all other expressions used in this scheme but not specifically defined therein, have the same meaning as are respectively assigned to them in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. Sub-clause-2 thereof, however, also indicates that in case of doubt relating to interpretation of any word or expression or any of the sections, the decision of the Chairman shall be final. Counsel for the petitioner, however, has not been able to establish from the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act either that scope of scheme and specially Clause-3 thereof covers cases of such employees of respondent-Board, who have died due to other medical reasons. Respondents, in their counter affidavit, have also taken the plea that the employee was on inspection of materials in the campus of M/s. Indian Rare Earth Division, Udyog Mandal, Kerala and started his journey on 16th September, 2002 and inspected the material on 19th September, 2002. Thereafter, he fell ill on 20th September, 2002 leading to his death on 24th September, 2002 during treatment in Kerela Institute of Medical Sciences, Anamukham, Trivandram. The death certificate also shows death due to A/C Intra Cerebral Haematoma and Morbid condition indicated therein are Hypertension/Diabetes Mellitus. According to the respondents, the Scheme of 1988 applied to employees of the Board, who died in discharge of duty assigned to them in an authorized manner by the competent authority. All the benefits of deceased employee have been granted such as G.P.F, Group Saving Scheme, Gratuity and Family Pension etc. after his death. His son, Pankaj Kumar Sinha has also been appointed on compassionate ground in Boards’ service.” 6. All the benefits of deceased employee have been granted such as G.P.F, Group Saving Scheme, Gratuity and Family Pension etc. after his death. His son, Pankaj Kumar Sinha has also been appointed on compassionate ground in Boards’ service.” 6. We are in concurrence with the finding of the learned First Court that the cause of death was sudden illness and not accident. In such circumstances, the writ petitioner/appellant cannot come within the ambit of the aforesaid scheme. She however would be entitled to death benefits as widow of the deceased employee. 7. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.