JUDGMENT : (Deepak Roshan, J.) The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: “(A) For quashing/setting aside the decision as contained in memo no.457 dated 02.04.2018 (Annexure-7) issued by the Director, Sports & Youth Affairs Directorate, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi (respondent no.3 herein) whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been informed that she is not entitled to payment of exgratia lump-sum compensation on account of death of her husband Late Ram Lalit Singh (ex-District Sports Officer, Hazaribagh); as being illegal-against law, unconstitutional, arbitrary, malafide and which is also against the opinion given by the state level medical board so obtained by the department itself AND/OR for payment of exgratia lump-sum compensation of Rs.10.00 lacs in view of state government resolution bearing memo no.1192 dated 11.06.2011, with interest @12% w.e.f. the date of death i.e. 15.02.2011. (B) For a direction upon the respondents to pay adequate compensation to the petitioner for the harassment and agony caused to her. (C) For any other reliefs to which the petitioner is legally entitled to in law and equity.” 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Ram Lalit Singh (now deceased) was employed under the Tourism, Arts, Culture, Sports & Youth Affairs Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and working as District Sports Officer, Hazaribagh. The husband of the petitioner died while employed on 15.02.2011, at which time he was deputed at Khelgaon in the 34th National Games 2011 by the State Government vide order dated 08.02.2011 issued by the Inspector General of Police, S.T.F. In support of death of the husband of the petitioner, a death certificate has also been issued by the competent authority dated 17.03.2011 which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ application. 3. The case of the petitioner is that her husband died due to cardiac arrest when he was admitted in RIMS, Ranchi. The dead body carried certificate issued by RIMS, Ranchi mentioning the cause of death 'CRA' i.e. Cardio Respiratory Arrest. In the Final Diagnosis column MI (i.e. Myocardial Infarction), CAD (i.e. Coronary Artery Disease), POST PTCS (i.e. Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty), LCX (Left Circumflex), Tripple Vessel Disease are mentioned. 4. The dead body carried certificate issued by RIMS, Ranchi mentioning the cause of death 'CRA' i.e. Cardio Respiratory Arrest. In the Final Diagnosis column MI (i.e. Myocardial Infarction), CAD (i.e. Coronary Artery Disease), POST PTCS (i.e. Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty), LCX (Left Circumflex), Tripple Vessel Disease are mentioned. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that when ex-gratia lump-sum compensation on account of death of her husband was not given to her; she filed representation before the respondent-authorities but when she did not get any response, she represented before the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India vide her letter no.08 dated 19.05.2016. Pursuant thereto; the petitioner received a letter bearing Memo No. 457 dated 02.04.2018 issued by the respondent no.3; whereby she has been informed that she is not entitled to payment of ex-gratia lump-sum compensation on account of death of her husband late Ram Lalit Singh. Being aggrieved of this, the petitioner filed the instant writ application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Government vide Finance Department Resolution bearing Memo No. 1192 dated 11.06.2011 adopted the Central Government policy and provided for payment of ex-gratia lump-sum compensation to the family of the deceased State Government employee who died on duty. This benefit has been made to be implemented w.e.f. 01.01.2006. It has been further submitted that in view of the provision/policy decision as contained in the aforesaid Resolution of the State Government of Jharkhand, the petitioner became entitled to payment of ex-gratia lump-sum compensation of Rs.10.00 lacs and the case of this petitioner is falling under the first category 'ka' as provided in said Resolution No.1192 dated 11.06.2011. It has further been submitted that through RTI reply dated 17.05.2018, the petitioner came to know the file noting from which it transpires that after receipt of the PMO letter dated 26.06.2016, the respondent-department moved the file regarding the claim of this petitioner from one office to another. File noting dated 27.06.2016 of the Director addressed to the Secretary shows that the cause of death of the husband of the petitioner has been discussed in the light of medical transcripts as recorded in the dead body carrying certificate and treating it as a case of Massive Heart Attack. File noting dated 27.06.2016 of the Director addressed to the Secretary shows that the cause of death of the husband of the petitioner has been discussed in the light of medical transcripts as recorded in the dead body carrying certificate and treating it as a case of Massive Heart Attack. The file was then processed for seeking opinion from the Health Department on the point whether heart attack/brain hemorrhage can be treated as accident in the course of performance of duties. The State Medical Board was constituted and the Chairman of the State Level Medical Board, Jharkhand, Ranchi returned the file to the Health Department with his comment dated 19.01.2018 giving opinion that in the course of performance of duties death due to heart attack/brain hemorrhage comes under the category of accident. From the aforesaid file noting it further transpires that even after receiving opinion from the State Medical Board, the respondent-department sent the file to the Finance Department for opinion. The Finance Department gave its opinion on the file on 09.03.2018 by saying that "I don't think the department of sports should require the help of Finance Department to define accidental death..." and opined that a person who suffers massive heart attack and brain hemorrhage while working/sitting in office cannot be said to have died of accidental death. Learned counsel further submits that the opinion of the Finance Department does not even consider the opinion given by the State Medical Board. He lastly submits that the Respondents may be directed to grant ex-gratia lump-sum compensation to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the file of the petitioner’s representation of claiming ex-gratia lump-sum compensation was received for opinion of the Finance Department. It is submitted by the learned counsel that after examining and perusing the records of the case as well as documents submitted by the petitioner such as death certificate, dead body carrying certificate issued by the RIMS Ranchi (which shows the cause of death of the husband of the petitioner as “Heart Attack”) Finance Department gave an opinion that the Heart Attack does not come within the definition of the accidental death and accordingly the said file was returned to the Department of Sports & Youth Affairs Directorate, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi for further appropriate and necessary steps. 7. 7. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Smt. Alka Shukla V. Life Insurance Corporation of India reported in (2019) 6 SCC 64 has categorically dealt with the definition of “Accident” and “Heart Attack”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case while deciding the aforesaid issue, has dealt with various judgment of different Hon’ble High Courts as well as of Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the respective affidavits it appears that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Ram Lalit Singh (now deceased) was employed under the Tourism, Arts, Culture, Sports & Youth Affairs Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and working as District Sports Officer, Hazaribagh and he died by heart attack while employed as such on 15.02.2011, at which time he was on deputation at Khelgaon in the 34th National Games 2011. It further transpires that the State Government of Jharkhand vide Finance Department Resolution bearing Memo No. 1192 dated 11.06.2011 adopted the Central Government policy and implemented with effect from 01.01.2006 which provides for ex-gratia lump-sum compensation to the family of the deceased State Government employee who died while being on duty. 9. The petitioner contends that her case falls under the first clause ‘ka’ as provided in Resolution No. 1192 which provides for ex-gratia compensation of Rs.10 lakhs in case of death due to accident during duty and the respondents have controverted this claim stating that the death of the husband of petitioner was not caused due to accident; as such she is not entitled to ex-gratia compensation. 10. Thus, the issues to be decided by this Court in this case are: (i) “Whether the death of the husband of petitioner which was caused by heart attack comes under the category of ‘accident’ or not ?” (ii) “Whether the petitioner is entitled to ex-gratia compensation as per Resolution bearing memo no. 1192 dated 11.06.2011 or not?” 11. From bare perusal of Annexure-8 to the writ application it appears that after receipt of the PMO letter dated 26.06.2016, the respondent-department moved the file regarding the claim of the petitioner from one office to another. 1192 dated 11.06.2011 or not?” 11. From bare perusal of Annexure-8 to the writ application it appears that after receipt of the PMO letter dated 26.06.2016, the respondent-department moved the file regarding the claim of the petitioner from one office to another. File noting dated 27.06.2016 of the Director addressed to the Secretary shows that the cause of the death of the husband of this petitioner has been discussed in the light of medical transcripts as recorded in the dead body carrying certificate and treating it as a case of Massive Heart Attack. The file was then processed for seeking opinion from the Health Department on the point whether heart attack/brain haemorrhage can be treated as accident in the course of performance of duties. Thereafter, the State Medical Board was constituted and the Chairman of the State Level Medical Board, Jharkhand, Ranchi returned the file to the Health Department with its comment dated 19.01.2018 giving opinion that in the course of performance of duties death due to heart attack/brain haemorrhage comes under the category of accident. However, after receiving opinion from the State Medical Board, the respondent-Department sent the file to the Finance Department for opinion. The Finance Department gave its opinion on the file on 09.03.2018 by saying that "I don't think the department of sports should require the help of finance department to define accidental death..." and opined that a person who suffers massive heart attack and brain haemorrhage while working/sitting in office cannot be said to have died of accidental death. 12. It appears that the Finance Department did not even consider the expert opinion given by the State Medical Board. The Finance Department cannot overrule the expert opinion given by the State Medical Board which was especially constituted for the said purpose and thus; the only competent authority to decide whether the case of petitioner’s husband falls under the category of ‘accident’ was the Medical Board. 13. It further appears that the respondents have heavily relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Alka Shukla” (supra) and specifically upon para 35 to controvert the claim of petitioner for claiming exgratia compensation. For brevity the relevant para is quoted herein below: “35. 13. It further appears that the respondents have heavily relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Alka Shukla” (supra) and specifically upon para 35 to controvert the claim of petitioner for claiming exgratia compensation. For brevity the relevant para is quoted herein below: “35. In the present case, there is no evidence to show that any bodily injuries were suffered due to the fall from the motorcycle or that they led to the assured suffering a heart attack. There is no evidence to show that the accident took place as a result of any outward, violent and visible means. The assured died as a result of a heart attack which was not attributable to the accident.” 14. The stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to claim ex-gratia compensation in view of the aforementioned judgment as the death of the husband of this petitioner does not fall within the category of ‘accident’, does not appeal to this Court as in Alka Shukla (Supra) the issue was regarding insurance claim and it is a settled principle that insurance claims depend upon the express and defined terms and conditions as agreed upon by the parties and are to be adjudicated upon their peculiar facts and circumstances. Even otherwise, in the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that there is no evidence to show that the accident took place as a result of any outward, violent and visible means; whereas in the instant case, as stated hereinabove, the State Medical Board was especially constituted for the said purpose and it has opined after verification and scrutinising the entire file and held that in the course of performance of duties death due to heart attack/brain haemorrhage comes under the category of accident. Thus, the Judgment relied upon by the Respondent-State is not applicable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. 15. At this stage, it is also profitable to refer the case where the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Union of India v. Sunil Kumar Ghosh” reported in (1984) 4 SCC 246 defined accident as an occurrence or an event which is unforeseen and startles one when it takes place but does not startle one when it does not take place. It is the happening of the unexpected, not the happening of the expected, which is called an accident. It is the happening of the unexpected, not the happening of the expected, which is called an accident. In other words, an event or occurrence the happening of which is ordinarily expected in the normal course by almost everyone undertaking a rail journey cannot be called an “accident”. But the happening of something which is not inherent in the normal course of events, and which is not ordinarily expected to happen or occur, is called a mishap or an accident. 16. Having regard to the above discussion and from bare perusal of Resolution bearing Memo No. 1192 dated 11.06.2011 which is a beneficial policy and the opinion of the Medical Board the first issue is answered in affirmative and the decision as contained in Memo No. 457 dated 02.04.2018 issued by the Director, Sports & Youth Affairs Directorate, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi made placing reliance on the opinion of Finance Department is hereby quashed and set aside. 17. With regard to the second issue when the death of the husband of petitioner which was caused by heart attack falls under ‘accident’ the petitioner is entitled to ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs as per Resolution bearing Memo No. 1192 dated 11.06.2011, which shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order; failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled for Simple Interest @ 8% per annum from the date of death of her Husband-Deceased Employee, till the date of actual payment of compensation. 18. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed in the manner indicated hereinabove. Pending IA, if any, also stand closed.