By this writ petition the petitioner is praying for a simple direction to the respondents to consider her case for appointment on compassionate ground under the scheme for die-inharness prepared by the Bank. 2. Heard Mr. N. Surendrajit, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 3. Succinct fact of the petitioner's case is that her husband late, Shri H. Indramani Singh was serving as a Bank Officer in the Manipur Rural Bank and while he was serving in such capacity he died-in-harness on 15.12.2001. After the death of the petitioner's husband, the family members of the petitioner were left in a very bad financial condition and they are living as destitute and because of such financial difficulties, the petitioner herself filed an application to the concerned authority for appointing her on compassionate ground under the die-in-harness scheme applicable to the concerned Bank i.e. Manipur Rural Bank. In pursuance of the said application, the concerned authority of the Bank had already called the necessary information from the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West District under the letter of the Officer (Admn) dated 24.1.2002 (Annexure-A/1 to the writ petition). The concerned Sub Divisional Officer, i.e. Wangoi after holding due inquiry has submitted a report in his letter dated 8.3.2002 (Annexure-A/2 to the writ petition) to the D.C., Imphal West District stating clearly that the annual family income of the petitioner is only 12,000/- approximately per year excluding the pension amount and also that the petitioner's family has a piece of land under patta No. 425 (New) covered by C.S. Dag No. 1526 village No. 106-Hiyangthang. As the concerned authority did not take up any action for considering her case for appointment on compassionate ground under the said die-inharness scheme of the concerned Bank, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. Respondents have also filed their affidavit-inopposition and statements had been made by them in paragraph No. 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner's family had received a substantial amount of money on the death of the petitioner's husband. Such being the situation, the members of the petitioner's family were not living in a bad financial condition 5. Be that as it may, it appears that there is no speaking order from the side of the Bank regarding appointment of the petitioner under die-in-harness scheme. 6. Such being the situation, the members of the petitioner's family were not living in a bad financial condition 5. Be that as it may, it appears that there is no speaking order from the side of the Bank regarding appointment of the petitioner under die-in-harness scheme. 6. Considering the submission of both the parties, I am of the considered view that this writ petition could be disposed of with the simple direction. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file a representation mentioning in detail about her conditions after the death of her husband and also her educational qualifications to the respondent/Bank within a period of one week to the authority of the Bank. The concerned Bank, on receipt of the said representation, shall consider the same and pass an appropriate speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. Petition is disposed of accordingly.