JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this court for directing the respondents to appoint him under the Die-in-Harness scheme in a post commensurate to his qualification. It has been further urged by the petitioner that decision communicated by the letter under No.F.5(10)-PD/2016/485 dated 01.03.2017 issued by the respondent No.2 and the letter under No.3816-17/4-9/TFS/2017 dated 14.03.2015 issued by the respondent No.4 shall be quashed. 3. The facts are mostly admitted. For irreconcilable difference the mother of the petitioner got separated from the family of the petitioner’s father and however, she was getting maintenance regularly from the petitioner’s father in terms of the judgment and order dated 30.06.2011 delivered in Misc.06 of 2011 by the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura. 4. In the course of time, the family ration card was separated. A separate ration card was opened in the name of Smt. Purna Laxmi Debbarma, the petitioner’s mother. In that ration card, the petitioner’s name also figures as he was living with his mother. The original ration card remained in the name of Rabi Chandra Debbarma, the father of the petitioner whereafter the siblings were recorded as the family members. Rabi Chandra Debbarma died on 08.04.2015 leaving behind the petitioner and 5(five) other siblings, his mother and grandmother. Rabi Chandra Debbarma was working as the leading fireman under the respondent on regular basis and he was on service when he expired. The petitioner duly applied for appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme, with all required documents by the communication dated 01.03.2017 [Annexure-7 to the writ petition], the under Secretary of the Home Department informed the Director, Fire Service, Government of Tripura, Agartala that the Finance Department has regretted the proposal for giving the petitioner appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme stating as under : “From the family Ration Card of Lt. Rabi Chandra Debbarma it is clear that Shri Sushanta Debbarma was living separately as on the date of death of his father and as such as per existing rule he may not be considered as a family member of the deceased employee.” This was the sole reason for denying the petitioner appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme. Rabi Chandra Debbarma it is clear that Shri Sushanta Debbarma was living separately as on the date of death of his father and as such as per existing rule he may not be considered as a family member of the deceased employee.” This was the sole reason for denying the petitioner appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme. The respondents in the reply has just adopted the said ground for resisting the claim of the petitioner. 5. Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that solely on the basis of the ration card a family cannot be defined. There are some persuading circumstances for which the family may be divided or its members may be living in the different place. But co-related facts are to be considered for determining whether the person who is claiming the compassionate appointment was really part of that family or not? 6. Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has drawn the attention of this court to the guidelines as followed for appointment or the financial assistance, under the Die-in-harness scheme. He has appointed out to the proviso below Para-2 where it has been stipulated that the daughter in law or the widowed daughter, if she used to live separately from the family of the deceased government employee, she shall not be considered as family members and at the same time she shall not be treated as the earning member of the family of the deceased government employee for purpose of providing benefits under the scheme to other eligible family members. Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has clearly admitted that Sushanta Debbarma [the petitioner] is not a married person. 7. That apart, this court has taken a special note under the circumstances that for irreconcilable differences when the mother of the petitioner used to stay separately the petitioner used to stay with her mother. Therefore if that living separately from his father is taken adversely, in the context as narrated, that will frustrate the very object of the Die-in-harness scheme. There is no dispute that the entire family was depending on income of the deceased employee. There is no dispute that the petitioner is otherwise eligible for compassionate appointment. 8. Therefore if that living separately from his father is taken adversely, in the context as narrated, that will frustrate the very object of the Die-in-harness scheme. There is no dispute that the entire family was depending on income of the deceased employee. There is no dispute that the petitioner is otherwise eligible for compassionate appointment. 8. Having regard to the special feature that has surfaced in this case, this court is of the view that the technical objection that has been raised by the respondents stands distinguished against the very object of the scheme and as such, this court is unable to accept such objection. Hence, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for purpose of giving him the appointment under the Die-in-Harness scheme within a period of 3(three) months from the date when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order. With these observations and direction, this petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.