JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. R Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sougata Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has urged this Court for mandating the respondents, particularly, the respondent No.2 to provide him a job commensurate to his qualification under the die in harness scheme for death of Suresh Jamatia, who died suddenly out of illness on 27.08.2013 while he was serving as a Programme Helper under the Tribal Rehabilitation and Plantation and particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group Department. Suresh Jamatia, according to the survival certificate is survived by (i) Smt. Urmilla Jamatia (mother), (ii)Smt. Kiran Bala Jamatia (wife), (iii)Smt. Binata Jamatia, (iv)Sri. Amrita Singh Jamatia (son) and (v) Sri Jara Mohan Jamatia (son). The petitioner being the son of Suresh Jamatia having obtained the No Objection Certificate from the other family members applied for a job under the die in harness scheme. But his prayer was not acceded to for the reason that since the petitioner was not the part of the family of the deceased employee on the day of death and as such he would not be entitled to get any job under the die in harness scheme. The said decision of the State government was communicated to the petitioner by letter under No.F.2086/ESTT/TRP&PTG/09/1682 dated 02.09.2014 (Annexure-G to the writ petition). 3. Mr. Datta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said decision of the government is not informed and thus it is arbitrary. The petitioner being the elder son was living with the deceased employee but for other benefits, they got their ration cards separated. There was no physical separation and as such the respondents should reconsider their decision for providing him a job under the die in harness scheme. 4. From the other side, Mr. Sougata Datta, learned counsel for the respondents has quite categorically stated that for purpose of inferring whether the petitioner was living in the family of the deceased employee with his dependants or not, a structured inquiry is contemplated under the die in harness scheme and accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had carried out an inquiry and filed the inquiry report which is available with the additional counter affidavit filed by the respondents on 19.04.2017. It has been clearly stated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that the petitioner is not staying with the other survivors. That apart, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that from the ration card at P-52 of the additional counter affidavit it would be apparent that Jara Mohan Jamatia is the Karta of a separate family where his wife Koushyala Jamatia, brother Samarat Jamatia, sons Bijoy Jamatia and Bivek Jamatia are members. Existence of this certificate, according to Mr. Dutta, has not been challenged by the petitioner. They have acceded to that but later on they have claimed that they are the part of the family left by the deceased Suresh Jamatia. In this regard, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has referred to the ration card at P-54 of the said additional counter affidavit wherefrom it can be conveniently gathered that Suresh Jamatia was the karta of that family whereas Kiran Bala Jamatia, his wife, and mother of the petitioner, Binata Jamatia and Amrita Jamatia, respectively the sister and brother of the petitioner constituted the family of Suresh Jamatia and that has been reflected in the ration card. 5. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner, having referred to the rejoinder has submitted that though the definition of family has been modified by the memorandum under No.F.1(1)-GA(P&T)/92(L) dated 24.09.2011 (Anenxure-R1 to the rejoinder) has stated that the definition family by the said memorandum dated 24.09.2011 has taken a different contour. When the legitimate children are included where the married son or the married daughter or married daughter in law, if he/she lives separately from the other members of the family, has been excluded. From the report of the SDM, it transpires that the petitioner has been living separately from the other members of the family. In this regard, the petitioner has miserably failed to produce any record to show that at the time of death of Suresh Jamatia, the deceased employee, the petitioner was living with the family of the deceased Suresh Jamatia. 6. In such circumstances, this Court cannot take a view contrary to what has been provided in the scheme, particularly what has been provided by the memorandum dated 24.09.2011 (Anenxure-R1 to the rejoinder). 6. In such circumstances, this Court cannot take a view contrary to what has been provided in the scheme, particularly what has been provided by the memorandum dated 24.09.2011 (Anenxure-R1 to the rejoinder). Since the petitioner has been living separately from the family of the deceased employee now he cannot be considered within the family of the deceased employee for the purpose of extending the benefit under the die-in-harness scheme. Thus, this writ petition stands dismissed. 7. However, it is made clear that it appears from the survival certificate and the ration card enclosed with the additional affidavit that Binata Jamatia, daughter of the deceased employee if does have the minimum educational qualification for any government employment can apply for compassionate appointment. If Smt. Binata Jamatia is inclined to have a job under the die in harness scheme and if she finds that she is eligible for such appointment, she may apply to the competent authority, and for that purpose the limitation under the die in harness scheme shall stand waived in view of the application filed by the petitioner. Further, if it is found that none of the family members of the deceased employee is competent to get the government job they shall be provided with the financial assistance to the extent of rupees one lakh under the scheme. The entire exercise for consideration of the government job or the financial assistance shall be completed within a period of four months from the date when the petitioner or any one from the family of the deceased employee submits a copy of this order to the respondent No.2. 8. If Smt. Binata Jamatia is inclined for the job, she shall furnish a proper application to the respondent No.4 with a copy of this order. This order has been passed in terms of the changed policy that it is the duty of the government to find out an eligible member in the family of the deceased government employee to provide a job in the family. 9. A copy of this order be supplied to Mr. Sougata Datta, learned counsel for the respondents. 10. In terms of the above observations and directions this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.