JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have urged this court for directing the respondents to quash the decision contained in the letter dated 10.02.2017 under No. 6768/F.16(483)-PHQ/2017 whereby the application for providing job under die-in-harness scheme filed by the petitioner no. 1 has been regretted. Further, the petitioners have urged this court for directing the respondents to provide the petitioner no. 1 a job under the die-in-harness scheme, commensurate to his qualification. 3. There is no dispute that the petitioner no. 2, the mother of the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2 made an application for providing a job under the die-in-harness scheme to the petitioner no. 1, her son immediately after death of her husband namely Narayan Pal who expired on 04.02.2014 while serving as Police Constable at the M.T. Pool. Such application for a job under the die-in-harness scheme was made to the Superintendent of Police for tiding over the serious financial inconvenience that had visited the family. All the testimonials as required under the scheme were submitted, but for a long time said application was not considered. Finally, from the communication dated 10.02.2017, the petitioner came to know that the proposal for appointing the petitioner no. 1 under the die-in-harness scheme has been objected for the reasons as recorded in the said communication: “On scrutiny of documents, it appears that Shri Rajesh Paul son of the deceased Const. Narayan Paul does not belong to the family of the deceased Govt. Servant as per family Ration Card on the day of the death of the Govt. servant on 04.02.2014. The family Ration Card of the deceased Govt. Servant includes the name Lt. Const. Narayan Paul and his wife Smt. Anita Paul. The name of Sri Rajesh Paul is found in a separate Ration Card of which head of the family is Shri Rajesh Paul. As such, there is no scope for providing any employment under die-in-harness scheme to Sri Rajesh Paul as the son of the Lt. Const. Narayan Paul is found separated himself from the family of the deceased Govt. servant prior to death of his father.” 4. As such, there is no scope for providing any employment under die-in-harness scheme to Sri Rajesh Paul as the son of the Lt. Const. Narayan Paul is found separated himself from the family of the deceased Govt. servant prior to death of his father.” 4. As there is none else in the family eligible for any government employment, the mother of the petitioner namely Smt. Anita Pal was asked to submit petition for financial assistance as per norms. 5. The petitioners have challenged this decision. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that though two ration cards, one in the name of the petitioner no. 1 as the head of the family and the other in the name of the deceased employee as the head of the family were there, but they were living together and the petitioner no. 1 was wholly dependent on the income of the deceased employee. 6. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has, however, vehemently disputed such statement and in order to repel the claim of the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner no. 1 was living separately from the family of the deceased employee at the time of the death of his father, he cannot be treated as the member of the family of the deceased employee in terms of the definition so provided by the die-in-harness scheme, as amended. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has in this regard referred to the paragraph 8 of the reply filed by the respondents. That apart, Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that by the memorandum issued under No. F.1(1)-GA(P&T)/92(L) dated 24.09.2011, the definition of the family has been restructured and there it has been categorically provided that the legitimate children excluding a married son or a daughter or daughter-in-law if he/she lives separately from other members of the family shall be treated as the member of the family. 7. Having appreciated the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the records as produced, it appears that sine qua non for excluding the married son and the daughter in law is not for having the separate ration card, but for their living separately physically. 7. Having appreciated the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the records as produced, it appears that sine qua non for excluding the married son and the daughter in law is not for having the separate ration card, but for their living separately physically. The respondents have also submitted the inquiry report dated 26.09.2016 (Annexure 1 to the reply filed by the respondents) filed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Tripura where it has been clearly stated that the deceased employee was living with all the family members, in total four. This is a physical inquiry conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Tripura. The respondents have no business to discard the said inquiry report. The inquiry report has thus clearly shown that the petitioner no. 1 was living with the deceased employee and there was no physical separation. Accordingly, the decision as contained in the impugned order dated 10.02.2017 is interfered with and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner no. 1 under the die-in-harness scheme to a post commensurate to his qualification within a period of 3(three) months from the date when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order. 8. Having observed thus, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.