JUDGMENT : By filing this writ petition, the petitioner, inter alia, prayed for directing the respondents to give her a job under the Die-in-harness scheme for the death of her father Jogendra Chandra Das, who died on 21.11.2003 while working as a Class-IV employee (Storeguard) under the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs (FCS & CA), i.e. the respondents. 2. Heard learned Sr. counsel, Mr. S. Deb assisted by learned counsel, Mr. P.K. Pal for the petitioner and learned counsel, Mr. D.C. Nath for the respondents. 3. It is not in dispute that Jogendra Ch. Das, father of the petitioner died on 21.11.2003 while he was serving as a Class-IV employee (Storeguard) under the respondents. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is the daughter of the deceased employee Jogendra Ch. Das. Further, it is also not in dispute that the petitioner made an application on 20.02.2004 for providing her a suitable job in accordance with her qualification and suitability for the death of her father under the Die-in-harness scheme. Her application has been regretted by respondent No.2 i.e. the Director of FCS & CA Department by writing letter dated 01.06.2013. A copy of which is annexed as Annexure18 to the writ petition. For ready reference and for fair appreciation of the same, let us reproduce here Annexure18 i.e. the letter dated 01.06.2013 which reads as follows: “GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA DIRECTORATE OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, P.N.COMPLEX, GURKHABASTI, AGARTALA No.F.2B(17)ESTT/DF/68(P)10,65456 Dated, Agartala, the 01/6/2013 To Smt. Gouri Das, D/o Lt. Jogendra Ch. Das Ex-Cordon Guard Vill. South Badharghat (Karaimura), P.O. Charipara, P.S. Amtali, West Tripura. Subject: Application of Smt. Gouri Das, D/o Lt. Jogendra Ch. Das, Ex-Cordon Guard for providing employment under Die-in-harness scheme-regarding. Madam, This refers to your application dated nil (received dated 20.2.2004 at Central Stores) as forwarded by the officer-incharge, Central Stores, A.D. Nagar for providing Govt. Job under Die-in-harness scheme due to death of deceased Jogendra Ch. Das, Ex-Cordon Guard on 21.11.2003 while in service. 2. The application/claim for providing Govt. job under Die-in-harness scheme has been examined very carefully and sympathetically under the prevailing Rules and regulation by the Finance Department. As per observation of the Finance Department “It appears that as per Ration Card, the applicant Smt. Gouri Das is the daughter of Lt. Jogendra Ch. Das, Ex-Cordon Guard but she was not family member of Lt. job under Die-in-harness scheme has been examined very carefully and sympathetically under the prevailing Rules and regulation by the Finance Department. As per observation of the Finance Department “It appears that as per Ration Card, the applicant Smt. Gouri Das is the daughter of Lt. Jogendra Ch. Das, Ex-Cordon Guard but she was not family member of Lt. Jogendra Ch. Das at the time of death of her father. She was living separately from her father Lt. Jogendra Ch. Das as per Ration Card”. 3. After considering all aspects, your application for providing Govt. job under Die-in-harness scheme is not eligible to be considered for providing Govt. job under die-in-harness case and hence regretted. Yours faithfully, Director Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Tripura”. 4. A bare reading of the above letter makes it clear that the prayer of the petitioner has been turned down only on the ground that she was not a family member of Jogendra Ch. Das at the time of his death and that she was living separately from her father Lt. Jogendra Ch. Das as per ration card, a copy of which is annexed by the respondents as Annexure R/1 to the counter affidavit. 5. Mr. Deb, learned Sr. counsel has submitted that the application was filed by the petitioner seeking job on 20.02.2004 i.e. immediately after the death of her father and at that time her father left behind 7(seven) members including the petitioner and only the petitioner made a prayer for job to which other family members had no objection. He has also submitted that the word ‘family’ for the purpose of employment under Die-in-harness scheme was defined vide memo dated 19.11.1997 which reads thus: “Family means a Government servant-wife and Husband as the case may be and legitimate children. Note: (a) The term ‘Children’ includes sons & unmarried daughter; (b) Married sons, even if they live separately should be treated as member of the family.” Subsequently a clarification was issued by memo dated 24.06.2002 (Annexure6) which reads as follows: ‘Family in relation to a deceased Government Servant means (i) his wife or her husband, as the case may be (ii) legitimate children (iii) daughter-in-law (iv) dependents parents and (v) dependent unmarried brothers and sisters in the case of bachelor government servant, but does not include a married son or daughter-in-law if they live separately from other members of the family.’ 6. According to Mr. Deb, the petitioner being the daughter was a member of the family of deceased employee Jogendra Ch. Das as shown in ration card No.351 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) and I find that the name of the petitioner was shown in Sl. No.5 of the said ration card. At the time of hearing original ration card also shown in the open Court which is examined by learned counsel, Mr. Nath for the respondents. Further, the respondents in their counter affidavit did not dispute the genuinity of the Annexure-5. 7. The contention of Mr. Nath, learned State Counsel is that at the time of verification of her testimonials, the petitioner produced a ration card No.575 dated 12.03.2004 (Annexure R/1) and it was a ration card issued in the single name of the petitioner and that shows that the petitioner was living separately in separate family apart from the family of the deceased Govt. employee. 8. Jogendra Chandra Das, the father of the petitioner died on 21.11.2003. Annexure5 i.e. original ration card No.351 shows the name of the petitioner as a daughter of Lt. Jogendra Ch. Das in the ration card issued on 19.11.1996 and genuinity of that ration card was not challenged. The petitioner in her rejoinder affidavit submitted that after the death of her father her sister-in-law (brother’s wife) pushed her out of the family for some time and compelled her to live away from her parental house and that is the reason for her to have a separate ration card dated 12.03.2004. Admittedly that ration card dated 12.03.3004 was issued after the death of the deceased Govt. employee and after the application was made by the petitioner for the job. It is an admitted position that the other members of the family left by deceased employee advanced no objection to favour employment of the petitioner under the scheme. According to the definition of ‘family’ contained in memo dated 19.11.1997 as reproduced hereinbefore, the term ‘children’ includes sons and unmarried daughter. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was an unmarried daughter at the relevant time of submission of application and still she is unmarried. The subsequent clarificatory memo dated 24.06.2002 as reproduced hereinbefore also speaks that the family includes the “legitimate children” and no doubt the petitioner is a legitimate child. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was an unmarried daughter at the relevant time of submission of application and still she is unmarried. The subsequent clarificatory memo dated 24.06.2002 as reproduced hereinbefore also speaks that the family includes the “legitimate children” and no doubt the petitioner is a legitimate child. By the memo dated 24.06.2002 only married son or daughter-in-law living separately from the members of the family has been excluded and not a daughter even if living separately from the family. The other criteria in respect of entitlement of the petitioner to have a job under the Die-in-harness scheme is not at all disputed. 9. The petitioner made the application on 20.02.2004 but unfortunately that has been disposed of by the respondents only on 01.06.2013. Perhaps, the very purpose of a benevolent scheme of the State Govt. shall frustrate if such an abnormal time is taken to dispose of the application of a family member of a deceased Govt. employee. The reasons assigned while rejecting the application of the petitioner does not appear to be according to the scheme and hence I have no hesitation to interfere with the letter dated 01.06.2013 issued by the respondent No.2 and accordingly that letter is quashed. 10. The respondents are directed to provide a suitable job to the petitioner under the Die-in-harness scheme for the death of her father taking into consideration her educational qualification etc. and that should be done within 60(sixty) days from today. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and stand disposed of.