JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. S. Mahajan, learned legal aid counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. R. Purakayastah, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this court to provide him an appointment under Die-in-harness scheme interfering with the decision dated 06.11.2013 as reflected in the memorandum No.4303/F.1(41)/Estt/Die-in-harness/SD/12 [Annexure-E to the writ petition]. 3. The short resume of fact may be noted at the beginning. The petitioner’s father namely Sibu Shil was a daily rated worker in the Baikhora police station and he died on 02.08.2013 when he was still serving in the said capacity. At the time of death, the deceased employee [DRW] was survived by the petitioner, petitioner’s mother Sabita Sarkar (Shil), his grandmother Chapala Shil, his sister Jharna Shil and younger minor brother Sudip Shil. Immediately after the death i.e. 06.08.2013, the petitioner placed the said information to the Superintendent of Police, South Tripura, Belonia [Annexure-C to the writ petition]. But by the communication dated 06.11.2013, the petitioner was informed as under: “As per Home Deptt., Govt. of Tripura vide letter No.F.1(36)-PD/2007 dated 17/03/2007, it is clearly mentioned that DRWs are not covered under die-in-harness scheme. Hence, your prayer for providing Govt. job cannot be considered under the die-in-harness scheme.” The said decision borne in the communication dated 06.11.2013 [Annexure-E to the writ petition] is under challenge. 4. The petitioner has asserted that the said decision of the Superintendent of Police, South Tripura, Belonia was based on a factually incorrect premise, as by the memorandum under No.F.(1)-GA/97 dated 11.08.1997 [Annexure-H to the writ petition] the Government has declared that the Die-in-harness scheme would be extended to the following categories of the employees: “(i) If a Government employee, having family members working as daily rated/contingent labourers/workers, expires while in service, the daily rated/contingent worker/labourer amongst the surviving members of the family or one of them as selected by the family members, if there is more than one, may be given regular employment subject to eligibility. (ii) The Die-in-harness scheme shall be applicable to all permanent labourers who are covered under the Permanent Labourer (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983.” Even though the said memorandum dated 11.08.1989 has been referred and relied by the petitioner, but in the context of the case, the modified policy will not be of much benefit to the petitioner. (ii) The Die-in-harness scheme shall be applicable to all permanent labourers who are covered under the Permanent Labourer (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983.” Even though the said memorandum dated 11.08.1989 has been referred and relied by the petitioner, but in the context of the case, the modified policy will not be of much benefit to the petitioner. However, the subsequent memorandum under No.F.1(3)-GA(P & T)/99 dated 06.08.2010 [Annexure-I to the writ petition] is highly relevant inasmuch as by the said memorandum, the Government has clearly declared a policy making provision for employment to the dependants of the deceased Daily Rated Worker [DRW], Contingent employee, Casual Worker and Fixed Pay Worker, whose name appeared in the database prepared by the Finance Department for regularization. For purpose of reference the relevant part of the said memorandum dated 06.08.2010 is extracted hereunder: “This Department’s Memorandum of even number dated 9th January, 2009 was issued in connection with extending benefit of Government job under Die-in-harness Scheme to the dependents of deceased DRW/Contingent employees only. Now, it has been decided by the Government that similar benefit will also be extended to the dependants of Casual worker/Fixed pay workers, whose names have appeared in the data prepared by the Finance Department for regularization and before issue of formal order of regularization the employee concerned expired. This is issued in partial modification of this Department Memorandum of even number dated 9th January, 2009 on obtaining concurrence from the Finance Department vide U.O.No.381/Fin(G)/10 dated 22.06.2010. Therefore, the Memorandum No.F.1(3)-GA (P & T)/99 dated 9th January, 2009 shall stand modified w.e.f 09.01.2009.” 5. But the petitioner unfortunately could not get any information whether the deceased employee’s name was in the database prepared for regularization. Even in the entire writ petition, when the petitioner was engaged in the daily rated worker has not been clearly stated. The respondents by filing the counter-affidavit has reiterated their stand that since the deceased employee was a daily rated worker the petitioner’s claim to have the compassionate appointment under Die-in-harness cannot not be acceded to. But from the records produced by Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, this court finds that the petitioner’s father namely Sibu Shil was engaged as DRW on 04.05.1987. But from the records produced by Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, this court finds that the petitioner’s father namely Sibu Shil was engaged as DRW on 04.05.1987. It is so apparent from the communication made from the office of the Director General of Police under reference No.3589/F.23(3)-PHQ/2012 dated 27.01.2012 addressed to the Deputy Secretary, Home Department for purpose of regularization of service of DRW’s/Casual/Contingent Worker on completion of 10(ten) years of services as on 31.03.2008. It transpires therefrom that the name of the deceased employee has entered in the said communication dated 27.01.2012 with the following details: Sl. No. Name of the Workers Date of Birth Date of Engagement as DRW Remarks 15. Sri Shibu Shil, UR, S/O.Lt. Rasaraj Shil, Vill & P.O. Santir Bazar, South Tripura, Office: SP (South) 12/11/69 04/05/87 (i) No document regarding his engagement is available. However, Continuation towards his engagement from 01/04/1994 [Annexure-XXX, XXIX, XXIII (A), XXIII, XXII, XXXII, XXI, XX] as DRW was received from time to time from Finance Deptt. as per proposal from PHQ. (ii) Master Roll for the year 1992 is available (Annexure-XVIII). 6. Thus it is clear that the name of the deceased employee was in the database for regularization. Similarly from the communication under No.F.1(52)-PD/2001 (Part-II) dated 03.04.2012 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Home Department, addressed to the Director General of Police, Tripura, Agartala, it transpires as under: “On the basis of documents furnished by you, not a single case has been found to have fulfill the conditions prescribed for regularization i.e. DRW’s/Casual/Contingent Workers engaged on full time basis prior to 31-03-2003. Hence their cases could not be considered for regularization.” This comment is not rooted in the information furnished by the office of the Director General of Police as it has been seen that the petitioner’s father namely Sibu Shil was engaged on 04.05.1987 as DRW and in the column for remarks, it has been observed that the documents from 01.04.1994 were available and sent to the Finance Department. 7. The database of the DRWs [full time] engaged with the concurrence of the Finance Department who had put up 15(fifteen) years of service as on 31.03.2005, reveals that the petitioner’s name has entered in serial No.28. Hence, apparent it is that the petitioner was eligible to be regularized, but he was not regularized. 7. The database of the DRWs [full time] engaged with the concurrence of the Finance Department who had put up 15(fifteen) years of service as on 31.03.2005, reveals that the petitioner’s name has entered in serial No.28. Hence, apparent it is that the petitioner was eligible to be regularized, but he was not regularized. The office of the Director General of Police was pressing hard by making communication for approving the regularization. One of such communications made to the Home Department is under reference No.7256/F.23(3)-PHQ/2005 dated 24.02.2007. By the said communication, the database was refurbished and in that data base the petitioner’s name has entered in the serial No.31 with the same entry as was in the earlier data base. In the said communication dated 24.02.2007, the office of the Director General of Police has asserted as under: “Subject:- Regularization of services of DRWs/ Casual/Contingent workers. Sir, Please refer to PHQ earlier proposal NO.27681/F.23(3)-PHQ/2005 dated 23/8/2006 and subsequent reply issued vide No.1194/F/23(3)/PHQ/2005, dated 11-1-2007 on the above subject. In view of Govt. of Tripura, Finance Deptt. Memorandum No.F.10(2)/FIN(G)/2002 dated 22-2-2007 a fresh list of eligible 61 (sixty one) candidates (DRW) who have completed 15 years of service as on 31-3-2006 is sent herewith for your information and doing the needful. It is, therefore, requested to kindly obtain and convey the Govt. approval towards regularization of their services at your earliest convenience.” 8. From another communication under No.6116-17/F.23(3)-PHQ/2005, dated 23.02.2006, it is gathered that the name of the father of the petitioner namely Sibu Shil has entered in the said database at serial No.72. Similar records are also available in the data base of the Police Department. The same has been appended as Annexure-A to the communication dated 03.12.2005 which originated from the office of the Director General of Police for the Finance Department. 9. It further appears that this court by the judgment and order dated 17.04.2015 delivered in Writ Petition (Civil) No.307 of 2013 [Smt. Tulshi Rakshit & Ors. The same has been appended as Annexure-A to the communication dated 03.12.2005 which originated from the office of the Director General of Police for the Finance Department. 9. It further appears that this court by the judgment and order dated 17.04.2015 delivered in Writ Petition (Civil) No.307 of 2013 [Smt. Tulshi Rakshit & Ors. vs. State of Tripura & Ors.] had occasion to direct the respondents in terms of the memorandum dated 01.09.2008 issued by the Government of Tripura in the Finance Department in the following terms: “The petitioners since working for more than 10 years, they are well covered under Memorandum dated 01.09.2008 and the respondents turned down their regularization without assigning any reason and hence, I think it is a fit case and it is appropriate to give proper direction to regularize them as a Group-D workers under the Police Department of the Government of Tripura in the vacant posts or creating supernumerary posts as the case may be.” 10. In terms of that order the Government had issued the office order dated 09.07.2015. The petitioner’s father was squarely covered by the memorandum dated 01.09.2008. These entries relating to the tenure of service as the DRW [full time] are not disputed by Ms. R. Purakayasth, learned counsel appearing for the respondents inasmuch as the entire record has been produced by her and as such Mr. S. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that this petition is thus covered by the memorandum dated 06.08.2010 [Annexure-I to the writ petition] where the Government has extended the benefits to the dependants of Casual Workers/Fixed Pay Workers, whose names have appeared in the database prepared by the Finance Department for regularization and waiving for issuance of the formal order of regularization. But the employee concerned has expired. 11. There cannot be any amount of dispute that in the relevant database the name of the petitioner’s father namely Sibu Shil is entered and the relevant entries are extracted in this order. Thus this court has not hesitation to declare that the petitioner’s father namely Sibu Shil be deemed to have been in the database for those who were eligible to be regularized in terms of the Finance Department memorandum dated 01.09.2008. That apart, the case of the petitioner’s father is squarely covered to the extent of regularization by the judgment dated 17.04.2015 delivered in Writ Petition (Civil) No.307 of 2013. That apart, the case of the petitioner’s father is squarely covered to the extent of regularization by the judgment dated 17.04.2015 delivered in Writ Petition (Civil) No.307 of 2013. Thus there cannot be any reason to deprive the petitioner from having the compassionate appointment as the other dependents have relinquished their claim over such appointment under Die-in-harness scheme. The otherwise also, the petitioner is eligible to be appointed under the Die-in-harness scheme. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner under the Die-in-harness scheme to a post commensurate to his qualification and experience etc., so that the dependents of the deceased employee can tide over serious financial turbulence that visited them for death of the sole bread earner in the family. 12. Having observed thus, the respondents are further directed to make such appointment within a period of 3(three) months from the date when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this judgment and order to the respondents. In the result, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. Return the records as produced before this court by Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs.