JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the action of the respondents as reflected in the letters dated 24.06.2014 and 30.06.2014. It has been also urged to direct the respondents for giving the petitioner No.1 compassionate appointment commensurate to his qualification under the Die-in-harness scheme. If suitable persons are not available in the family, in the alternative, the petitioners may be given the financial assistance as available under the Die-in-harness scheme. 3. The facts which are not disputed are that the father of the petitioner namely Arun Chandra Kar who was serving as the Constable of Tripura Police died on 10.09.2013 in harness. It has surfaced that the elder brother of the petitioner namely Sanjit Kar has been serving as the rifle man under 11th BN. TSR. 4. Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that even though the family ration card of the said elder brother was separated from the family of the deceased employee after his death, but his elder brother was living separately much before the death of the deceased employee. He was staying with his family nearby the Battalion Head Quarters with permission from the competent authority. 5. Be that as it may, if the elder brother of the petitioner is considered as a part of the family left by the deceased employee, in view of the employment of the elder brother namely Sanjit Kar, the petitioner No.1 cannot be appointed under the Die-in-harness scheme. But Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that that aspect of the matter has been decided solely on the basis of the family ration card and for this purpose, the ration card or its separation cannot be the whole basis. There should have been enquiry beyond that. 6. Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has emphatically submitted that separation of the ration card is the outcome of the enquiry conducted for that purpose. The presumption thereof that prior to the separation of the ration card the elder brother of the petitioner namely Sanjit Kar was living in the same family as left by the deceased employee cannot therefore be questioned. 7. The presumption thereof that prior to the separation of the ration card the elder brother of the petitioner namely Sanjit Kar was living in the same family as left by the deceased employee cannot therefore be questioned. 7. In the circumstances, this court is of the view that to have the clinching material, a fresh enquiry shall be carried out by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Belonia to find out whether the elder brother of the petitioner was part of the family of the deceased employee on 10.09.2013 or not. For this purpose, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall also examine the application seeking separation to gather under what circumstances or on what date such application was made. That apart, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall gather from the other sources whether the elder brother of the petitioner No.1 was part of the family of the deceased or not. Mere stay away cannot mean living separately from the family. It is made clear that if it is found that the elder brother of the petitioner No.1 namely Sanjit Kar was part of the family of the deceased employee then the petitioner No.1 shall not be given appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme. However, if it is found that the elder brother of the petitioner had left the family of the deceased employee much before the death of the deceased employee, then the case of the petitioner No.1 shall be considered under the Die-in-harness scheme. Having observed thus, this petition stands disposed of. The petitioners shall furnish one copy of this order to the respondents as well as to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Belonia for doing the needful. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of 8(eight) weeks from the date when the writ petitioner shall furnish a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.