JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D.C. Nath, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this court for directing the respondents to appoint her to a post commensurate to her qualification under the Die-in-harness Scheme for death of her father namely Tapan Chakraborty who was serving as the Graduate Teacher under the Directorate of School Education, Government of Tripura. When her father was posted at Chandrapur Girls H/S School, Udaipur, Gomati, Tripura he died on 10.11.2011. The petitioner with no-objection from her widow mother applied for employment under the Die-in-harness Scheme on 16.02.2012, within the stipulated time as prescribed by the Die-in-harness Scheme. According to the petitioner, immediately after her submission of the said prayer, the Director of School Education, Government of Tripura made a communication under No.F.1(1-2)-SE/E/(NG)/2012/(10)/529 dated 29.05.2012 seeking a report from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati, Tripura. 3. It appeared from the records that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati, Tripura carried out an inquiry and furnished his report on 03.08.2012 where he had recommended the petitioner for her appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme. The said communication dated 29.05.2012 and the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 03.08.2012 are available with the writ petition as Annexure-B and C. But by the communication dated 22.02.2013 [Annexure-D to the writ petition] the petitioner was informed that the Finance Department has expressed their inability to give accord for appointment of the petitioner, as the petitioner is the married daughter of the deceased employee. The petitioner made a representation for further consideration of her prayer on 08.03.2013. With the said representation, the petitioner had enclosed copies of the Ordinary Resident Register (ORR) Certificate and the family Ration Card. The said representation was rejected by the respondent No.2 by the communication dated 30.05.2015 [Annexure-F to the writ petition]. 4. When the petitioner had come across the memorandum dated 07.05.2016 whereby he was asked to report to the planning section of the office of the respondent No.2, he reported the planning section. But he could not find out any valid reason for summoning her to that section. The petitioner had come across the memorandum dated 24.09.2011 issued by the GA (P&T) Department, Government of Tripura, by dint of which the definition of the “family” in the Die-in-harness Scheme was revised. But he could not find out any valid reason for summoning her to that section. The petitioner had come across the memorandum dated 24.09.2011 issued by the GA (P&T) Department, Government of Tripura, by dint of which the definition of the “family” in the Die-in-harness Scheme was revised. By the said memorandum dated 24.09.2011 the “family” has been defined as follows : “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 brother and unmarried sister and (viii) dependent widow daughters.” 5. On the basis of the said memorandum dated 24.09.2011, the petitioner renewed her prayer for appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme by filing another representation dated 28.07.2017 [Annexure-H to the writ petition]. But the said representation was also rejected without disclosing any reason by the memorandum dated 18.08.2017 [Annexure-I to the writ petition]. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court by filing this writ petition. 6. Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that reasons as assigned by the Finance Department are grossly in conflict with the said memorandum dated 24.09.2011 whereby it has been clearly provided that the legitimate children excluding a married son or married daughter or daughter-in-law, if he/she lives separately from other members of the family would be treated as the part of the family. The petitioner, according to Mr. Pal, learned counsel, was unmarried when her father died but later on, she get married but still she is living with her widow mother and as such, she is the part of that family within the meaning as provided by the said memorandum dated 24.09.2011. To buttress the said contention, Mr. Pal, learned counsel has referred to the family Ration Card and the copy of the Ordinary Resident Register Certificate dated 08.03.2013, as enclosed with the writ petition. 7. Mr. D.C. Nath, learned Addl. To buttress the said contention, Mr. Pal, learned counsel has referred to the family Ration Card and the copy of the Ordinary Resident Register Certificate dated 08.03.2013, as enclosed with the writ petition. 7. Mr. D.C. Nath, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has strenuously argued that there is no infirmity in the decision of the respondents inasmuch as the petitioner is a married daughter of the deceased employee and it is only natural that she has been living separately with her husband somewhere. For that reason, the Finance Department has considered that the petitioner cannot come within the definition of the “family” of the deceased employee. That apart, Mr. Nath, learned Addl. G.A. has referred to Para-13 of the reply filed by the respondents which reads as under : “13. That with reference to the averment/contentions made in paragraphs 5 to 11 of the writ petition it is humbly submitted that the petitioner has submitted a copy of Family Ration Card bearing No.16021011010081461 wherein her mother’s name and her name has been recorded. It is seen from the said family Ration Card that the name of the petitioner has been recorded as per declaration vide affidavit No.3091/6/12 which was sworn after the date of death of her father Late Tapan Chakraborty Graduate Teacher who died on 10.11.2011. Therefore, from the family ration Card it is evidently clear that the petitioner was living separately at the time of death of her father who died on 10.11.2011 and her name was recorded in the Family Ration Card after the date of death of her father. It is submitted that there is a Government decision communicated vide erstwhile Appointment & Service Department, Tripura Memorandum No.F.1(2)-GA/77 dated 13.08.1996 wherein it is stated that the eligibility for employment under die-in-harness scheme shall be determined as on the date of death of the concerned employee. Therefore, the petitioner who is a married daughter of the deceased Government employee and who was living separately on the date of death of her father may not be claim as a member of her father’s family. And as such, her prayer for employment under die-in-harness scheme has rightly been rejected by the Respondent No.2. Hence, the averment made by the petitioner that the Memo dated 22.2.2013 and 30.5.2013 rejecting of her prayer for job under die-in-harness scheme are illegal, unlawful and contrary to “Die-in-harness” Scheme is baseless. And as such, her prayer for employment under die-in-harness scheme has rightly been rejected by the Respondent No.2. Hence, the averment made by the petitioner that the Memo dated 22.2.2013 and 30.5.2013 rejecting of her prayer for job under die-in-harness scheme are illegal, unlawful and contrary to “Die-in-harness” Scheme is baseless. Therefore, the writ petition may also be rejected by the Hon’ble High Court.” 8. Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in his rejoinder to the submission made by Mr. Nath, learned Addl. G.A. has categorically stated that the statement made in Para-13 of the reply is without any inquiry and merely on assumption, which is again without any foundation. The petitioner according to Mr. Pal, learned counsel has clarified the real position of fact in Para-10 of the rejoinder which reads as under : “10. With reference to the statements/averments/contentions made in Paragraph 13 of the CA, it is respectfully submitted that the same are denied and disputed. The humble petitioner alongwith her mother and deceased father were residing at Manubazar because of the posting of her father at Manubazar. In the later part of 2010, the deceased father of the petitioner was transferred and posted at Chandrapur High School, Udaipur and accordingly, the whole family shifted to Udaipur. In the new ration card bearing No.16021011010081461, issued at Udaipur wrongly bore the name of one “Smt. Tulsi Chakraborty” in the place of “Smt. Parna Chakraborty” though none in the name of Tulsi Chakraborty exists in the family of the deceased Government employee. By the declaration vide affidavit No.3091/6/12, the correction of name i.e. “Tulsi Chakraborty” as wrongly recorded in ration card bearing No. 16021011010081461, was done by the rationing authorities and replaced by “Parna Chakraborty”. The statements by the respondents that the name of the petitioner was recorded in the Family ration card after the death of her father and she was living separately is wrong and has no factual foundation.” 9. Mr. Pal, learned counsel did not fail to mention that the said statement has not been disputed by the respondents by filing any additional affidavit. That apart, what has come to the notice of this court that on reference as per the scheme, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati, Tripura had submitted his report in the format on 03.08.2012 [Annexure-C to the writ petition]. That apart, what has come to the notice of this court that on reference as per the scheme, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati, Tripura had submitted his report in the format on 03.08.2012 [Annexure-C to the writ petition]. By the said report, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati, Tripura recommended for the government job under the Die-in-harness Scheme in favour of the petitioner. However, in his report, the petitioner has been shown as the married daughter of the deceased employee as well as shown as the member of the family of the deceased employee. Even in the Column-13 under Part-“A” of the said report, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has only mentioned against the information under the column which reads that “if applicant is married, whether he is staying with the family and evidence thereof-” that petitioner is married. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not given any evidence that the petitioner is living separately and as such, it can only be presumed that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate during his physical enquiry found that that the petitioner is living with the widow of the deceased employee. 10. In the reply, the respondents in this regard did not add any further information nor did propose before this court for further inquiry. In Para-9 of the reply, the respondents have stated that on receipt of the prayer dated 16.2.2012, the Respondent No.2 requested the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur for enquiring into the family condition of the petitioner and submit a report, vide letter No.F.1(1-2)-SE/E(NG)/2012(10) dated 29.05.2012. Accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur after inquiry into the family condition of the petitioner submitted the said report to the Respondent No.2 on 03.08.2012 stating that the family of the petitioner consists of 2(two) members. The family has 0.060 acre of landed property at Udaipur Town Mouza and monthly income of the family is Rs.6735/- only from provisional pension and the petitioner is the married daughter of the deceased Government employee. The respondents even did not question the said report in any manner and they have for all purposes accepted the report where it has been clearly mentioned that the family consists of the two members, implying the widow of the deceased employee and the petitioner who is the daughter of the deceased employee. The question therefore emerges whether a married daughter can get an employment under the Die-in-harness Scheme or not. The question therefore emerges whether a married daughter can get an employment under the Die-in-harness Scheme or not. The reply is available in the definition itself, which has been provided by the memorandum under No.F.1(1)-GA(P&T)/92(L) dated 24.09.2011 [part of Annexure-H] by laying down that all legitimate children of the deceased employee shall be treated as the part of the family left by the deceased employee, only the married son or married daughter or daughter-in-law, if he/she lives separately from other members of the family would be excluded. 11. From the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as well as from the Family Ration Card as filed by the petitioner, this court finds that the petitioner was living or has been living with the widow of the deceased employee on the day of death of the employee and as such, she is entitled to get the employment under the Die-in-harness Scheme. 12. Having observed thus, the respondents are directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner within a period of 3(three) months from the date when the petitioner shall furnish a copy of this order to the respondent No.2. In the result, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.