JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. A. S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents. 2. This is the second round of litigation by the petitioner. The petitioner has lost his father namely Rakhal Sarkar who was serving as the Head Clerk on regular basis, on 06.09.2014. His father was the sole bread earner in the family. Now, after his death, there is no earning member in the family. Immediately after death of the deceased employee, the petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme, to be precise on 08.07.2005. Later on, the petitioner had submitted another application on 29.06.2006. 3. When the first application was filed on 08.07.2005, the petitioner did not attain the minimum age of employment at the time of death of his father. He was only 16 years 4 months of age, but when the second application dated 29.06.2006 was filed, he attained the 18 years of age. The petitioner had perceived that he would be accommodated on his attaining the age of 18 years, the minimum age for employment. But it did not happen since the petitioner was not covered eligibility criteria laid down by the scheme because of his being short of minimum age as prescribed in this scheme i.e. 17 years. The family of the deceased employee was offered the financial assistance to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- instead of the compassionate appointment as there was no eligible person in the family. 4. Being aggrieved, by that action of the respondents, the petitioner filed the earlier writ petition being WP(C) No. 268 of 2015. The said writ petition was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 11.07.2016 on directing the respondents to re-examine the case of the petitioner having taken note a of the memoranda dated 28.08.1998 and 02.03.2015 and also in terms of the decision of this High Court delivered in WP(C) No. 140 of 2003. 5. The petitioner was also directed to file a copy of the judgment delivered in WP(C) No. 140 of 2003. The petitioner had submitted the said judgment to the competent authority but nothing had emerged. Thus, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition urging for direction upon the respondents to give him appointment under the die-in-harness scheme. 6. Mr. 5. The petitioner was also directed to file a copy of the judgment delivered in WP(C) No. 140 of 2003. The petitioner had submitted the said judgment to the competent authority but nothing had emerged. Thus, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition urging for direction upon the respondents to give him appointment under the die-in-harness scheme. 6. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously argued that by the judgment and order dated 10.07.2013, where an aspirant for the appointment under the die-in-harness scheme was short of few months from attaining the minimum age of 17 years as specified by the scheme, this Court had directed the competent authority to give a suitable employment to the petitioner of that case under the die-in-harness scheme within 3 months from the day of judgment. 7. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that in that case, the State has government implemented the said judgment and reduced the minimum age further and appointed the petitioner of that case namely Uttam Rabi Das. The respondents, however, after consideration of the judgment and order dated 11.07.2014 have clearly observed in communication dated 06.05.2017, Annexure-12 to the writ petition, that the case does not come within the zone for allowing the government employment under die-in-harness scheme as per norms, as the petitioner did not attain 17 years of age on the day of death of his father. 8. Ms. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted that by repeated filing the writ petition, the petitioner cannot improve his status or case. If someone is not covered by the scheme, the government cannot exercise that power for appointing him under that scheme. The family which is not covered by the scheme is provided with the financial assistance to enable to tide over with the stringent financial crisis immediately visited for death of the employee who was bread earned of the family. 9. Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the Court does not have the authority either to relax the restriction of the scheme or providing job under the die-in-harness. But the government has the power to do so. 9. Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the Court does not have the authority either to relax the restriction of the scheme or providing job under the die-in-harness. But the government has the power to do so. Since in the case of Uttam Rabi Das v. State Tripura and Others, the government has further reduced the minimum age for giving the job under the die-in-harness scheme. Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has urged for similar treatment for the petitioner. 10. The petitioner has pressed into the said judgment and order dated 10.07.2013 delivered in WP(C) No. 140 of 2003. Despite that, the government has not relaxed by way of reduction the said minimum age for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme. Hence, the Court is not inclined to give any further in this regard. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to make proper representation to the competent authority which may on exercise of their discretion decide the case. They are the authority to decide when they would relax further the minimum age limit on humane consideration if the same is applied rationally. With this observation and direction, this petition stands dismissed subject to the observation as made above. There shall be no order as to costs.