JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. M.K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has urged interference of this court in the decision as reflected in the memorandum dated 12.05.2015 [Annexure-F to the writ petition] as well as the communication dated 20.06.2016 [Annexure-H to the writ petition] denying the compassionate appointment under Die-in-harness scheme for death of his mother namely Belaphul Debbarma who had been working as a Group-D employee under the Directorate of School Education. The petitioner’s mother, herein after referred to as the deceased employee died suddenly on 21.08.2013. She had left behind her five dependants as it would be apparent from the survival certificate dated 19.11.2013 issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jirania, West Tripura [Annexure-E to the writ petition]. The other survivors namely Namita Debbarma, Suva Rani Debbarma and Kiran Mala Debbarma [daughters] and Bipin Debbarma [son] have executed a no objection certificate to the competent authority undertaking that they would have no objection if the petitioner namely Jatindra Debbarma is appointed under Die-in-harness scheme for death of their mother. 3. There is no dispute that the petitioner submitted all the necessary testimonials to satisfy the requirement for appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme. But his prayer was not acceded to and by the memorandum dated 12.05.2015 [Annexure-F to the writ petition] it has been communicated that since he was not living with the family of the deceased employee at the time of her death, he cannot be treated as the member of the ‘family’ within the meaning provided under the Die-in-harness scheme. The petitioner had tried to impress the competent authority for such appointment and finally served a notice on 08.06.2016 [Annexure-G to the writ petition]. But by the reply dated 20.06.2016 [Annexure-H to the writ petition] the petitioner was informed that the decision as taken and communicated by the memorandum dated 12.05.2015 stands. Hence the petitioner has approached this court for an appropriate direction on the respondents particularly on the respondent No.2 to provide him an appointment under Die-in-harness scheme as he is eligible to be appointed under the said scheme. 4. The respondents after having the notice have by filing the reply reiterated the same premise to deny the petitioner a compassionate appointment. 4. The respondents after having the notice have by filing the reply reiterated the same premise to deny the petitioner a compassionate appointment. Moreover, they have further stated that what the petitioner has stated in the writ petition that he was living his mother on the day of death but the two ration cards were prepared for getting some advantages in the PDS commodities. Such interpretation is hardly acceptable inasmuch as the admitted position is that the separate ration card was issued in favour of the petitioner much before the death of the deceased employee. In the para-13 of the reply, the respondents have stated as under: “That, in respect to the contention of Para 14 and 15 of the Writ Petition, the Answering Respondents submit, that, the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.161 of 2015 is applicable in the instant case. In W.P.(C) No.161 of 2015, the lis involved before the Hon’ble High Court has been settled by considering the disputes, that, the Petitioner of W.P.(C) 161 of 2015 was living separately being a married person having two separate ration cards bearing the name of the Petitioner i.e. Bharat Milan Jamatia and after considering such situation, the Hon’ble High Court vide Order, dated, 13.08.2015, passed an order in favour of the Petitioner with a direction to the State Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner by giving him compassionate appointment within a period of three months. In the instance case, the dispute involved is that, the Petitioner Jatindra Debbarma, being a married person was living separately while his mother Belaphul Debbarma, a Govt. Servant (Group-D), died-in-harness. In both the cases the identical and similar circumstances are as follows; (a). Both the Petitioners i.e., the beneficiaries of the scheme were in possession of two ration cards in their names. (b). In both the cases the Petitioners submitted necessary requisition as per the die-in-harness scheme as well as no objection certificate from the other family members to the competent authority stating interalia, that, if the Petitioners of the respective cases were provided the benefit of the scheme, the rest of the family members will have no objection to that effect with a further stipulation/declaration that, after getting the said benefit, the Petitioner will maintain the rest of the family members, otherwise his service will be terminated. (c). (c). In view of the propositions discussed above, keeping in view of the pleadings of the instant Petition as well as Judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court it appears, that, the facts and circumstances of the instant case is resembling that of with the facts and circumstances of W.P.(C) 161 of 2015.” [Emphasis added] 5. The reference has been made to a decision of this court in Bharat Milan Jamatia vs. State of Tripura & Ors. [judgment and order dated 13.08.2015 delivered in W.P.(C) No.161 of 2015]. In that case, this court has observed as under: “This is a unique case which has fallen for consideration of this Court in respect of the petitioner’s appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme. There cannot be any amount of dispute that after the Die-in-Harness Scheme was made operational, it has been clarified by the General Administration (Personnel & Training Department), Government of Tripura by the memorandum dated 24.06.2002 that the family in relation to a deceased Government servant means (a) his wife or her husband, as the case may be (b) legitimate children (c) daughter-in-law (d) dependants parents and (e) dependent un-married brothers and sisters in the case of a bachelor government servant, but does not include a married son or daughter-in-law if they live separately from other members of the family. To some extent Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned GA is correct in holding that this Court may assume that the petitioner was living separately from the family of the deceased employee. But from the collateral documents as well as from the affidavit filed by the mother and brother of the petitioner, it is apparent that they are living in the same family. How the petitioner has acquired the separate family ration cards is a matter shrouded by unexplained circumstances. However, since the Die-in-Harness Scheme for compassionate appointment is a welfare measure of the State, the interpretation may be made purposefully having regard to its object. As such, this Court is of the view that as two opinions are amenable to be formed, the opinion that supports the cause of the petitioner has to be accepted by this Court. However, since the Die-in-Harness Scheme for compassionate appointment is a welfare measure of the State, the interpretation may be made purposefully having regard to its object. As such, this Court is of the view that as two opinions are amenable to be formed, the opinion that supports the cause of the petitioner has to be accepted by this Court. In view of that, the State is directed to consider the compassionate appointment of the petitioner for death of his father, Eleven Jamatia in harness within a period of 3 (three) months from today as it has been found that there is no other objection against making such compassionate appointment.” 6. The respondents have clearly stated that the case of the writ petitioner is covered by the said judgment. Without any comment on such reply, it is better to be leave those aside. In terms of the order dated 20.03.2017, Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has produced the inquiry report submitted to the Director of School Education, the respondent No.2 on 02.05.2014 where the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jirania, West Tripura has recommended the petitioner as suitable for the Government service under the Die-in-harness scheme. In the said report, except a noting that the petitioner was having a separate ration card, nowhere it is mentioned that the petitioner has separated him forever from the family of the deceased employee. 7. In the communication dated 20.06.2016 [Annexure-R/2 to the reply filed by the respondents], it has been observed that, on a scrutiny, it is observed from the Family Ration Card of late Belaphul Debbarma that the petitioner was married and living separately from the family of his mother. ‘Living separately’ cannot be wholly dependent on creation of a separate family ration card even though it is known to all that under the Public Distribution System (PDS) the ration card is issued for a unit of ‘family’. Thus it is obvious that when a separate ration card is issued in the name of a person he cannot belong to the other family except the family for which the same ration card is used. But as stated by the petitioner that it is only for taking the advantage of the PDS products he separated the family ration card, but he was in real term, living with his mother. But as stated by the petitioner that it is only for taking the advantage of the PDS products he separated the family ration card, but he was in real term, living with his mother. Even the SDM did not say in his inquiry report which has been produced by Mr. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner was physically living separately from his mother. If on inquiry it is found that in reality the petitioner was a part of the family of the deceased employee, by waiving the technicalities as raised by the respondents, it should be the duty as the welfare state to provide one of the dependants of the deceased employee an appointment commensurate to the qualification and experience of the petitioner so that the entire family can tide over that unfrozen the financial stringency. In this regard, the decision of this court in Bharat Milan Jamatia (supra) supports the petitioner’s contention. 8. Having held so, the respondents are directed to consider the compassionate appointment for the petitioner under the die-in-harness scheme within a period of 3(three) months from the date when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this judgment by waiving the technical objection as projected by them in their reply. 9. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. A copy of the report dated 03.05.2014 as submitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jirania, West Tripura to the Director of School Education, Government of Tripura be made part of the records for future reference. There shall be no order as to costs.