JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged for direction on the respondents, particularly on the respondent No. 2, to provide her a suitable job under the Die-in-Harness Schemes. The facts which are not in dispute are that the father of the petitioner, namely, Sudhir Das while serving as a Progress Assistant under the respondents on regular basis died on 18.06.2013 leaving behind the petitioner, his only son, his wife, namely, Jharna Rani Das expired on 02.01.2006 and his daughter, namely, Mousumi Das expired on 13.02.2010, much before the death of the deceased-employee. 2. Heard Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner applied for the job within the time and in the format provided by the respondents. But the respondents by the communication under No. F.1(567)/STAT/ESTT/ 2013/5361 dated 25.11.2015 had apprised the petitioner as under: “The Finance Department vide U.O. No. 1200/FIN(G)/14 dated 15.10.2015 stated that “the name of the applicant, Sri Rakesh Das did not appear in the Ration card of the deceased Government servant, Lt. Sudhir Das as on date of death, so he cannot be considered as a family member of the deceased employee for the purpose of providing Government job under Die-in-Harness Scheme. The proposal of the department is therefore rejected.” 4. With their reply, as submitted by the respondents, the copy of the said Ration card has not been adduced. However, those respondents have stated in the Para 7 as under: “It is stated that GA (P&T) Department is the Nodal Department for die-in-harness related cases. Accordingly, amendments in this regard are issued by GA (P&T) Department vide Memo No. F.1(1)-GA(P&T)/92(L) dated 24.09.2011, the definition of “family” for the purpose of providing employment/financial assistance in die-in-harness schemes include legitimate children excluding a married son or married daughter or daughter-in-law, if he/she lives separately from other member of the family. On examination of the proposal, Finance Department observed that the petitioner was not a family member at the time of death of his father. Accordingly, the petitioner was asked to submit old ration card showing the name of his late father (Annexure-6 of the writ petition). The petitioner was not able to submit any ration card at that relevant point of time despite being given the opportunity for establishing his claim. Accordingly, the petitioner was asked to submit old ration card showing the name of his late father (Annexure-6 of the writ petition). The petitioner was not able to submit any ration card at that relevant point of time despite being given the opportunity for establishing his claim. The same has been admitted by the petitioner vide Para-4, Page-5 of the writ petition.” 5. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Bishalgarh issued a Survival Certificate on 03.08.2013 which is enclosed with the writ petition as Annexure-3, from where it will be available that the petitioner is the only surviving member of the deceased employee. 6. Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted that in the Para-4 of the writ petition the petitioner himself has admitted that he was not living with the deceased employee. 7. Such assertion has been made by Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. on the basis of the averments made in the counter affidavit and as reproduced. But from scrutiny of the said Para-4, it does not appear that the petitioner has admitted that he was not living with his father. 8. Having confronted with this situation, this Court has considered the report filed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bishalgarh, Sepahijala, District Tripura under the forwarding note dated 01.12.2013, Annexure-R/2 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. In the report in S. No. 13 of the Part-A the following has appeared: “13. If applicant is married. Whether he is staying with the family and evidence thereof.” 9. Clearly the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bishalgarh has written that the petitioner is married and he was staying with his family. No explanation whatsoever has been provided in this regard. Only on the basis of absence of the name of the petitioner in “old Ration card”, it has been concluded by the concerned Department that the petitioner was not part of the family of the deceased employee. 10. Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. has also produced the Memorandum dated 24.09.2011 which provides that a married son or married daughter if lived separately from the other members of the family, cannot be treated as a member of the family left by the deceased member. 10. Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. has also produced the Memorandum dated 24.09.2011 which provides that a married son or married daughter if lived separately from the other members of the family, cannot be treated as a member of the family left by the deceased member. There is no quarrel with this provision but the simple question that arises here is that whether the petitioner was living with his father or not, even though the petitioner is married. From the inquiry as carried out by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate it surfaces that the petitioner was living with his father or in other words, in the family of the deceased employee. To discard the said finding, absence of the name of the petitioner in the ration card, cannot be relied by this Court. Moreover, the said ration card has not been produced before this Court. 11. Since, the SDM's report is still unaltered and uncontested this Court is of the view that the petitioner shall be treated as the member of the family left by the deceased employee and he shall be considered for suitable job under Die-in-Harness Schemes. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner under the Die-in-Harness Scheme within a period of 3 months from the day when a copy of this order shall be furnished by the petitioner. 12. With the above observations and direction, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. No order as to costs.