Heard Mr.Dhananjoy, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr.K.Kumar, learned CGSC for the respondents. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's father, (late) Shri P.Purna Singh was initially appointed as Constable (Constable No.82636) in the SSB, Manipur on 30.11.1984. The petitioner's father, P.Purna Singh resigned from the post of Constable and entered in the new job of peon in the office of the Commandant Group Centre SSB, Mongsangei, Manipur. The petitioner further submits that his father while in service in the capacity of Peon in the SSB, Manipur, he expired on 14.2.2003. The petitioner and other family members are dependents of their father as peon in the SSB, Manipur. On the death of his father the petitioner and other family members are living in a very bad financial condition and also that family members of the petitioner is neither employed in the service of the Government of Manipur nor in the service of the Central Government. Further case of the petitioner is that there is a scheme for appointment on compassionate ground in case the employee died-in-harness. On the death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner's mother filed an application dated 17.2.2003 to the Area Organiser, SSB, Mongsangei, Manipur for appointing the petitioner to any suitable post under the die-in-harness scheme of the Central Government for appointment on compassionate ground. In continuation of the said representation filed by the petitioner's mother dated 17.2.2003, the petitioner also filed another application to the Commandant, SSB, Mongsangei for appointing him in any post commensurate to his educational qualification under the die-in-harness scheme on compassionate ground and in those applications, it has been clearly mentioned that other members of the petitioner's family i.e., family of the late P.Purna Singh have no objection to the appointment of the petitioner to any suitable post under the die-in-harness scheme. Further case of the petitioner is that the competent authority has not yet taken up any steps in pursuance of the representations dated 17.2.2003 and 14.12.2003 for appointing the petitioner under the die-in-harness scheme on compassionate ground. 3. In the course of hearing, Mr.K.Kumar, learned CGSC submits that he has received instructions from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India signed by the Commandant, dated 9.2.2005. 3. In the course of hearing, Mr.K.Kumar, learned CGSC submits that he has received instructions from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India signed by the Commandant, dated 9.2.2005. The said letter of the Commandant dated 9.2.2005 is placed before this Court for perusal and the same is placed on record of this file and marked as Annexure-X/1 for identification. From perusal of the said letter of the Commandant, it appears that the only objection from the side of the respondents is that the wife of the deceased, i.e. mother of the petitioner has to apply for job of her son through the area Organiser concerned and who in turn should submit the case to the Headquarter through proper channel rather than sending it to the Battallion. It appears to me that objection of the respondent is too technical. In the present case, the petitioner's mother had already filed the said representation dated 17.2.2003 to the concerned Area Organiser for appointing the petitioner under the die-in-harness scheme and the petitioner himself also filed another application to the Commandant, SSB, Mongsangei, Manipur for appointing him under the die-in-harness scheme to any post commensurate to his educational qualification. 4. This being the situation, the Area Organiser, SSB, Mongsangei, Manipur could process through proper channel for appointment of the petitioner under the die-in-harness scheme and submit the same to the Headquarters or in the alternative, Commandant, SSB, Mongsangei, Manipur also could process the said application of the petitioner dated 14.12.2003 through proper channel so that the case of the petitioner could be taken up of by the Headquarters for appointing him to any post commensurate with his educational qualification. 5. Considering the nature of the case, it appears that application for appointment of the petitioner under the die-in-harness should not be rejected only on the hyper-technical ground mentioned by the Commandant under his letter dated 9.2.2005, inasmuch as the purpose of preparing the scheme for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme is to save the dependent of the deceased government employee from financial hardships and also to help the family members of the bereaved government employee. 6. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and also submission of learned CGSC, Mr. 6. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and also submission of learned CGSC, Mr. K. Kumar, it appears that this writ petition could be disposed of with the direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner under the said die-in-harness scheme if the case of the petitioner is covered by the die-in-harness scheme to any post commensurate with his educational qualification as per turn as early as possible preferably within four months from the date of receipt of this order. With the above direction and observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.