JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. In terms of the order dated 20.07.2017, Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has produced the records bearing File No. F. 5(28)/SDM/ESTT/KLS/11 wherein this court has found the report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate who had physically verified different aspects including the living of the petitioner with the family of the deceased employee namely Barindra Debnath at the time of his death. The copy of the said report however was not filed with the reply filed by the respondents. Such copy is made part of the records and for that reason, it has been placed in the case records as Annexure ‘X’. 3. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents by the order dated 28.02.2017 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) have declined to provide the petitioner appointment under the die-in-harness scheme assigning the reason in paragraph 5 of the said order dated 28.02.2017 which reads as under: “Now as per order of the Hon’ble Court his application has been considered by the department but it appears that Sri Raju Debnath was not a family member of the same family of late Barindra Debnath as Shri Raju Debnath was not living with his father on the date of death of his father. From the ration card No. 1604203418012-1 of Fair Price Shop No. GNR-2 Dt. 31.05.11, it shows that Smt. Nilima Debnath, wife of late Barindra Debnath was his only surviving dependent on the date of expiry i.e. 14.03.2013”. 4. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has also submitted that earlier the petitioner had approached this court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) 1084 of 2016 which was disposed by the order dated 21.09.2016. By the said order, the respondents were directed to consider the petition of the petitioner for providing him a job under die-in-harness scheme for death of his father and such exercise shall be done within three months from the day of the order. When such exercise was not completed within a period of three months, the petitioner filed a petition for drawing up a contempt proceeding against the respondents, but during pendency, the impugned order dated 28.02.2017 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) was passed and has been challenges now by this petition. Mr. When such exercise was not completed within a period of three months, the petitioner filed a petition for drawing up a contempt proceeding against the respondents, but during pendency, the impugned order dated 28.02.2017 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) was passed and has been challenges now by this petition. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel while concluding his submission has submitted that from the physical verification report as submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, it would be apparent that the petitioner was living in the same family of the deceased employee. For existence of two separate ration cards it does not always mean that the family is separated. To get the ration card separated, the division of family cannot be inferred automatically unless it has been physically proved. 5. In this respect, Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has submitted that after death of the deceased employee, at the instance of the petitioner the competent authority issued a fresh ration card in lieu of his separate ration card, by which it would be revealed that there had been some addition of the family members and the change in the Head of the family. His mother has been shown as the Head of the family. He has further stated that the petitioner was not even a dependant family member as on the date of death of the deceased employee. That apart, Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has submitted that from the old ration card of the deceased employee, it would be apparent that the petitioner was not shown as a member of the family of the deceased employee and his name was not recorded in the ration card, where the deceased employee was shown as the Head of the family. From all these circumstances, according to Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel, it can comfortably be inferred that the petitioner was not living with the deceased employee at the time of his death. 6. If the ration card becomes the sole basis of finding out whether someone belonged to the family of the deceased employee or not, the physical verification would not have been made compulsory for granting any benefit under die-in-harness scheme, it would have been discarded. But the respondents are in terms of the die-in-harness scheme, depending on the physical verification report submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. But the respondents are in terms of the die-in-harness scheme, depending on the physical verification report submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The said report dated 16.11.2013 (Annexure ‘X’ of the proceeding clearly states as under: 13 If applicant is married whether he is staying with the family and evidence thereof Married person. He is staying with his mother along with family members mother 7. In part ‘C’ of the format, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Unakoti District has clearly recommended the petitioner for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme in the following terms: “View of SDM regarding of eligibility of applicant under die-in-harness scheme. Recommended.” The respondents have not only suppressed this document but did not also explain how they had considered the said recommendation in terms of the physical verification report. 8. From the reasons as provided in the impugned order and from the records as produced it appears that the respondents have decided solely on the ration card. The ration card cannot stand as the substantive proof of living in the family of the deceased employee. The physical verification report, as submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate cannot be discarded so unceremoniously as has been done by the respondents in view of the circumstances that prevail beyond what is recorded in the ration card. This is a very important evidence for purpose of determining this aspect of living in the family of the deceased. The die-in-harness scheme being a welfare scheme cannot be interpreted strictly in accordance with the words and terms. When there is a physical verification report, that must be given due weightage for purpose of taking a decision whether the applicant is married and staying away from the family of the deceased employee. 9. From the report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, it has clearly transpired that even though the petitioner is married, he was continuing to live with his mother. No other ground has been assigned by the respondents. It thus appears that there is no earning member in the family. The petitioner has waited for long to have the benefit out of the die-in-harness scheme, but that has not happened. As a result, the petitioner has approached this court. 10. No other ground has been assigned by the respondents. It thus appears that there is no earning member in the family. The petitioner has waited for long to have the benefit out of the die-in-harness scheme, but that has not happened. As a result, the petitioner has approached this court. 10. Having regard to the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as the averments made in the writ petition and the reply filed by the respondents and on perusal of the records, as referred to, this court is of the view that since there is none in the family who is earning or is engaged in the government service, the case is well covered by the die-in-harness scheme. The only controversy that remains unaddressed is that whether the petitioner would come within the definition of the ‘member of the family’ as provided by the respondents. 11. In the considered view of this court, since the physical verification report which has been issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate after conducting the inquiry, his finding shall be given primacy over the ration card inasmuch as the die-in-harness scheme does not provide to determine on the basis of the ration card alone whether someone was living with the deceased employee or not. The respondents are, therefore, directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner under the die-in-harness scheme within a period of 3(three) months from the day when a copy of this order would be made available to the respondents, particularly the respondent no.3. The respondent no.3 shall discharge the other requirements in the process. 12. In terms of the above, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. The record as produced is returned to Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel for the respondents.