JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. H. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The facts involved in this case are mostly admitted. The petitioner’s father who was a permanent labourer died on 27.10.2012 when he was in service. The petitioner, within the prescribed time, applied for compassionate appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme as there was no earning member in the family left by the deceased employee. But the prayer was rejected by the competent authority, the Director, Animal Resource Development, Government of Tripura as is reflected in the communication dated 29.09.2015 [Annexure-A/4 to the writ petition]. By the said communication the petitioner was informed that the Finance Department had regretted the proposal for compassionate appointment in his favour under the Die-in-Harness Scheme as one of his full blood brothers namely Prasenjit Debnath is working as the Constable of the Border Security Force(BSF), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. 3. Mr. H. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has succinctly submitted that the rejection is the gross outcome emanated from consideration of irrelevant aspects. He has further submitted that Prasenjit Debnath, another brother of the petitioner, had separated from the family in the lifetime of the deceased employee and he had been living away from the family of the deceased employee. Prasenjit Debnath is married and he is living with his own family. Hence, he cannot be treated as the member of the family of the deceased employee in terms of the definition provided by the memorandum dated 24.06.2002. In that memorandum it has been provided that: “Family in relation to a deceased Government Servant means (i) his wife or her husband, as the case may be (ii) legitimate children (iii) daughter-in-law (iv) dependents parents and (v) dependent un-married brothers and sisters in the case of a bachelor government servant, but does not include a married son or daughter-in-law if they live separately from other members of the family.” [Emphasis added] 4. To repel the said submission of Mr. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that Prasenjit Debnath was a member of the family left by the deceased employee and they had a common ration card. Mr. To repel the said submission of Mr. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that Prasenjit Debnath was a member of the family left by the deceased employee and they had a common ration card. Mr. Pal, learned counsel has referred to a family ration card bearing No.267 (corresponding old No.359) which was initially opened in the name of Raj Kumar Debnath, the deceased employee but by way of deletion the said ration card now stands in the name of Smt. Milan Debnath, mother of the petitioner. From perusal of the said ration card it appears that the name of Prasenjit Debnath was deleted on 07.12.2012. Thus Mr. Pal, learned counsel has submitted that the deletion had taken place after the death of the deceased employee and therefore there is no escape but to infer that said Prasenjit Debnath was a member of the family of the deceased employee at the time of death. But with the reply this court finds that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mohanpur, West Tripura by the report dated 22.11.2014 has clearly observed as under: “Sri Prashanjit Debnath S/o. Lt. Rajkumar Debnath was separated from his family at the time of his father death in this respect zerox copy of ration card is enclosed.” Again with the report, another report from one Officer-in-Charge of Debendra Chandra Nagar Tehsil Kachari is available and it mentions as follows: “(1) Shree Prasenjit Debnath S/O Lt Raj Kumar Debnath was got appointment in BSF, it was found at the time of enquiry. (Appointment letter enclosed herewith). (2) As per physical field inquiry it was found that Sri Prasenjit Debnath was separated from family of the deceased at the time of death of his father. So, He is residing in Kolkata with family separately as per statement his younger brother namely Indrajit Debnath.” 5. Since those reports were prepared on the basis of the statement made by the petitioner, this may not be treated as a comprehensive report. But it appears to the court that Prasenjit Debnath was living away from the family of the deceased employee and as such the respondents shall make a physical enquiry to find out whether Prasenjit Debnath had separated from the family of the deceased employee at the time of death. But it appears to the court that Prasenjit Debnath was living away from the family of the deceased employee and as such the respondents shall make a physical enquiry to find out whether Prasenjit Debnath had separated from the family of the deceased employee at the time of death. If it is found that Prasenjit Debnath, a constable of Border Security Force, was living with his family at some other place, Prasenjit Debnath cannot be treated as the member of the family of the deceased employee for purpose of giving compassionate appointment under Die-in-Harness Scheme. The physical enquiry as above shall be completed within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order to the respondents. 6. If it is found that said Prasenjit Debnath was living separately from his family from the time anterior to the death of the deceased employee, the petitioner shall be considered for compassionate appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme within a period of three moths when such report will be available to the respondents. With this observation and direction, this petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents for onward transmission.