JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. R Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Samarjit Bhattaccharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the decision of the respondents denying him the compassionate appointment under die-in-harness scheme on the ground as provided in the communication under No. F.2(LFW-21)ARDD/ESTT/09 dated 28.06.2017 (Anenxure-8 to the writ petition). In the said communication it has been provided as follows: “Your prayer for employment under Die-in-harness case is regretted by the Finance Department as you are a married daughter of the deceased Govt. servant and married daughter is not considered as family member for the purpose of providing any benefit under Die-in-hare-ness scheme.” 3. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has emphatically submitted that the petitioner has eligibility to be appointed under the die-in-harness scheme which has been lastly revised by the notification under No. F.1(2)-GA(P&T)/15 dated 16.12.2015 (Annexure-R9 to the reply filed by the respondents). However, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel did not miss to mention that that notification will have no application in the present case as the father of the petitioner, namely, Nandu Debbarma who was serving as a Group-D employee died on 02.11.2015 in harness. 4. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has further submitted that by the memorandum No. F.1(1)-GA(P&T)/92(L) dated 24.09.2011, the definition of ‘family’ was revised from the earlier one. It reads as under: “…………………. 2. Now, the definition of the term “family” for the purpose of providing employment/financial assistance both in die-in-harness and extremist/ethnic violence schemes has been reviewed by the Government and it is proposed to amend the definition of “family” as in the following manner:- (i) his wife or her husband, as the case may be; (ii) legitimate children excluding a married son or married daughter or daughter-in-law, if he/she lives separately from other members of the family; (iii) step Children, (iv) adopted Children, (v) dependent daughter-in-law; (vi) dependent parents; (vii) dependent unmarried brothers and unmarried sisters and (viii) dependent widow daughters. [Emphasis added]” 5. Further, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of this Court in Pintu Laskar and Anr. Vs. State of Tripura and Ors [judgment and order dated 23.11.2015 delivered in WP(C) 160/2015] where this court had occasion to observe vis-à-vis the memorandum dated 24.09.2011 as under: “8. [Emphasis added]” 5. Further, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of this Court in Pintu Laskar and Anr. Vs. State of Tripura and Ors [judgment and order dated 23.11.2015 delivered in WP(C) 160/2015] where this court had occasion to observe vis-à-vis the memorandum dated 24.09.2011 as under: “8. Having regard to the records as produced and the averments made in the writ petition, the counter-affidavit and the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondents, it appears that if a married daughter does not live separately from the family of the deceased employee, the benefit of the die-in-harness scheme can be provided to her. There is no dispute that the petitioner No.1 is not eligible for getting any benefit under die-in-harness scheme and as such the decision as taken by the Home Department does not call for any interference. ……………………….” Mr. Dutta therefore has asserted that this proposition itself covers the case of the writ petitioner. 6. Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that at the time of death of the deceased employee, i.e. 02.11.2015, as it appears, the petitioner was unmarried. But later on, she married and in all probability she had been living separately from the family left by the deceased employee. Therefore, the petitioner may not be given any benefit and according to Mr. Bhattacharjee, to obviate certain vagueness in the scheme the definition of the family has been further revised by the Notification dated 26.12.2015 whereby the married daughter has not been shown to be eligible for compassionate appointment under the die-in-harness scheme. But Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has fairly admitted that the legitimate children are however eligible for such employment. 7. Since this subsequent notification dated 26.12.2015 cannot be applied in the present case as the same was issued after death of the employee who died in harness, this Court will not embark upon any discussion what will be the impact of the said definition on this case. This Court is of the view that in terms of the proposition as laid down by this Court in Pintu Laskar (supra), the petitioner is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment under the die-in-harness scheme being the legitimate child of the deceased employee. This Court is of the view that in terms of the proposition as laid down by this Court in Pintu Laskar (supra), the petitioner is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment under the die-in-harness scheme being the legitimate child of the deceased employee. Moreover, it has appeared from the report of the SDM in the format that the SDM has clearly observed that the petitioner is eligible for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme making a physical inquiry into the particulars as required for such appointment. 8. Thus, the respondents are directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner within three months from the date when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order. However, if it is found that the documentation is inadequate, the respondents may ask for the relevant documents from the petitioner and in that event, the petitioner shall cooperate with the respondents for getting the benefit under that scheme. 9. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.