JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. Prayer has been made for quashing the order contained in memo no. 611 dated 11.12.2018, issued by respondent No. 4, whereby claim of petitioner for Ex-gratia Lump-sum compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of death of her husband during the Election Duty, has been rejected. Petitioner has further prayed that after quashment of the said order, respondents may be directed to pay ex-gratia Lump-sum compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- along with statutory as well as penal interest. 3. Facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The husband of the petitioner, a 4th grade employee was posted at Primary Health Centre, Lohardaga. The husband of petitioner was appointed as the 3rd Polling Officer for the Municipal Election, 2013 by the respondent No. 7 in pursuance of Sub-Section (1) and (3) of Section 26 of the Representation of People Act, 1963 and Jharkhand Municipal Election and Election Petition Rules, 28(1) of 2012. However, while the husband of the petitioner was on Election Duty, he suddenly died on 06.04.2013 and a death certificate to that effect was issued on 26.04.2013. After the death of her husband, the petitioner made a representation before the respondent-authorities for payment of ex-gratia Lump-sum compensation on account of death of her husband during election duty. Thereafter, vide letter No. 369 dated 10.12.2013, respondent No. 7 recommended the case of petitioner to respondent No. 3 for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- in light of resolution dated 13.01.2011 of respondent No. 5 and other provision of Election Commission, Govt. of India. Even after the aforesaid recommendation of respondent no. 7, the amount of ex-gratia lump-sum compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- was not paid to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted several representations but all went vain. Finally, after keeping the matter for a long time, the claim of petitioner was rejected by respondent No. 4 vide memo No. 611 dated 11.12.2018, holding therein that “the cause of death of husband of petitioner is sudden attack and not the violent incident/ accident, therefore, the claim of petitioner is not covered by the departmental resolution No. 648 dated 20.03.2008”. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 4. Ms. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 4. Ms. Rakhi Rani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that the impugned order of rejection is not sustainable in the eyes of law inasmuch as death of husband of petitioner, who went on election duty in healthy condition, was due to sudden attack, which comes within the meaning of accident but the respondent No. 4 deliberately rejected the claim of petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent No. 4 while rejecting the claim of petitioner has not at all considered the resolution No. 33 dated 13.01.2011 of Panchayati Raj and NREP Department and resolution No. 1563 dated 27.05.2015 of Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi and also the provisions of Election Commission of India on the concerned subject and has also not considered the recommendation made by respondent No. 7. Learned counsel further argues that respondent No. 4 has intentionally and deliberately ignored the relevant provisions of Election Commission of India and other resolutions including Finance Department’s resolution dated 27.05.2015. Learned counsel accordingly submits that for the reasons stated above, the petitioner is entitled for Ex-gratia lump-sum compensation along with statutory as well as penal interest, since the entire family of petitioner was dependent upon the earnings of the husband of petitioner and after his death, the family of petitioner is facing financial crisis. 5. On the other hand, though counter-affidavit has not been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that petitioner is not entitled for Ex-gratia lump-sum compensation since the cause of death of husband of petitioner is sudden attack and not the violent incident/ accident and as per rules, Exgratia compensation will only be granted when death occurred due accident on election duty and as such, in absence of any plea regarding accidental death, petitioner is not entitled for any amount under the head of Ex-gratia compensation. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that this case is a glaring example of depriving the victim from getting their legitimate claim with regard to the accidental death during election duty. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that this case is a glaring example of depriving the victim from getting their legitimate claim with regard to the accidental death during election duty. The dependant of the victim can claim compensation as per the resolution No. 33 dated 13.01.2011 of Panchayati Raj and NREP Department and resolution No. 1563 dated 27.05.2015 of Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand and also in view of the provisions of Election Commission of India on the concerned subject. It is not in dispute that the petitioner died due to heart attack while he was deputed as the 3rd Polling Officer for the Municipal Election, 2013. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the cause of death was not an accident rather, the same was due to heart attack, which does not comes under the purview of relevant rules for payment of ex-gratia compensation, is not acceptable to this Court. Merely as the petitioner died due to heart attack, it cannot be said that he did not die while on election duty. Admittedly, he went on election duty in healthy condition and thereafter, due to heart attack, the husband of the petitioner died. As per Cambridge Dictionary ‘Accident’ means ‘something bad that happens that is not expected or intended and they often damages something or injures someone. Hence, death of husband of petitioner, who went on election duty in healthy condition comes within the meaning of “Accident”. 7. The Hon’ble Patna High Court while hearing a matter relating to payment of ex-gratia compensation, has observed as under: “Before parting with the records of the case, the Court would like to observe that in order to avoid any such controversy in future, the Election Commission must insist on a suitable amendment in the cover clause of MOU. It appears to me that in place of the expression ‘death only resulting solely and directly from accident caused by external violence and any other visible means’, the expression used in Section-3 of Workman Compensation Act may be substituted, that is to say ‘death arising out of and in the course of election duty’.” 8. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and legal propositions, the impugned order contained in memo no. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and legal propositions, the impugned order contained in memo no. 611 dated 11.12.2018 being not sustainable in the eyes of law, is hereby quashed and set aside. 9. As a result of quashment of the said order, I, hereby, direct the respondent no.3, Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi to consider the case of the petitioner regarding payment of Rs.10,00,000/- as a compensation for the death during election duty along with statutory interest @ 10% per annum. 10. It is made clear that the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks' from the date of receipt/ production of copy of this order and legally payable amount shall be paid to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. 11. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.