JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. D.C. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The facts which are undisputed in this writ petition are that Sri Dulal Dey who was working as the Daily Rated Worker, the DRW in short, under the respondent No.4 died in the year 2009 leaving behind his 4(four) legal heirs. There is none in the family to earn livelihood. After the death of said Dulal Dey by the memorandum under No.F.2(159)/ARDD/ESTT/07/141 dated 25.06.2010, he was declared as the permanent labour under the Directorate of Animal Resources Development w.e.f. 01.01.2007. In terms of the said memorandum dated 25.06.2010, the respondents have released all the retiral benefits of Dulal Dey considering him as the permanent labour w.e.f. 01.01.2007. First, one son of the deceased employee, namely Biplab Dey applied for the job and other benefits under the die-in-harness scheme, by filing an application dated 06.07.2010, Annexure-5 to the writ petition. But the said son of the deceased employee was not eligible to have a Government employment. As a result, on 18.08.2010 Smt. Dipali Dey, the petitioner No.1 herein, had applied for employment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme. Later on, by the communication dated 21.01.2011, the petitioner No.1 informed the Director of Animal Resources Development to provide the job in favour of her son, namely Sri Bikram Dey, the petitioner No.3 herein. The necessary documents and the testimonials were submitted in the course of time but by the communication dated 05.02.2011 one Deputy Director of Animal Resources Development, R.K. Nagar, West Tripura forwarded the application of the petitioner No.1 to the Director of Animal Resources Development, Government of Tripura, Agartala. But by the communication dated 23.11.2012, Annexure-9 to the writ petition, it was informed to the petitioner No.3 that the prayer for giving employment under die-in-harness scheme had been regretted by the Finance Department, Government of Tripura. Similar communication was also made on 17.07.2013, Annexure-11 to the writ petition. It appears from the records attached to the writ petition that Animal Resources Development Department had taken sincere efforts to provide appointment for the petitioner No.3. 3. Mr. Similar communication was also made on 17.07.2013, Annexure-11 to the writ petition. It appears from the records attached to the writ petition that Animal Resources Development Department had taken sincere efforts to provide appointment for the petitioner No.3. 3. Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has further submitted that the relevant date for purpose of considering any period of limitation for purpose of die-in-harness scheme should start when the memorandum dated 25.06.2010 was issued. By the said memorandum the entire circumstances got changed and in favour of the petitioners new right came to being. The said right was created with retrospective effect from 01.01.2007, even though the relevant communication was made on 25.06.2010. Therefore, humanly it was impossible to get the benefit what accrued by the said memorandum before 25.06.2010. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has submitted that on the date of death of the deceased employee, the petitioner No.3 was aged about 17 years 12 days. If that age is relaxed in terms of the memorandum under No.F.1(1)-GA/97(L)/98 dated 28.08.1998, then the said petitioner will be entitled and eligible for compassionate appointment when he shall cross 18 years. For purpose of reference, the text of the said memorandum in its entirety is extracted hereunder: “GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA APPOINTMENT & SERVICES DEPARTMENT No.F.1(1)-GA/97(L) Dated, Agartala the 28th August, 1998 MEMORANDUM In partial modification of the provision contained in para 1 (ii) of the Appointment & Services Departments Memo.No.F.1(2)-GA/77 dated 13.08.1996 in regard to the instructions of the State Government towards regulating the “Die-in-harness” cases it has been decided by the Government that in the case of applicants otherwise eligible but under-aged at the time of death of Government employee concerned, the applicant shall be allowed a general relaxation of one year in the prescribed minimum age for employment in Government service, subject to the condition that actual employment will be given only after the prescribed minimum age is reached. 2. This relaxation shall take effect from 1st July, 1996. (MANISH KUMAR) Joint Secretary to the Government of Tripura” 4. From the other side, Mr. 2. This relaxation shall take effect from 1st July, 1996. (MANISH KUMAR) Joint Secretary to the Government of Tripura” 4. From the other side, Mr. D.C. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has in order to repeal the claim of writ petitions submitted that the proposition that has been advanced that the petitioners did have right to be considered for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme is totally untenable in view of the memorandum under No.F.1(3)-GA(P&T)/99 dated 06.08.2010 where it has been provided that: “This Departments 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 dependents 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 employees concerned expired.” Mr. Nath, learned counsel has urged this court to give strict interpretation to the provisions of the die-in-harness scheme. 5. What Mr. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended is without any foundation as in the counter affidavit, it has been nowhere averred that the petitioners did know that the name of the deceased employee was appearing in the database for regularization as the DRW. In effect, Dulal Dey was deemed engaged as 01.01.2007 posthumously by the memorandum dated 25.06.2010. The deceased employee was confirmed in the post of the permanent labour. As the petitioner did not apply for job within time, the case of compassionate appointment was not considered. The said plea cannot be accepted by this court both in equity. That apart, liberal construction has to be given, since the scheme formed for welfare of the family of the deceased employee, the date as would be relevant for this case is 25.06.2010 when the right accrued. From that date, the application for appointment under die-in-harness is within time. Therefore, there cannot be any forbearance for denying the appointment on such ground. 6. From that date, the application for appointment under die-in-harness is within time. Therefore, there cannot be any forbearance for denying the appointment on such ground. 6. Having observed thus, this court is of the view that the respondents, the respondent No.2 in particular, is directed to appoint the petitioner No.3, namely Bikram Dey in a post commensurate to his qualification within 3(three) months from the date when the petitioner No.3 shall submit a copy of this order. 7. In the result, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.