JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, 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 No.1 to 4 for appointing her under the Die-in-harness Scheme for death of her father namely Ratan Kumar Sharma while in service as the Junior Physical Instructor under the Directorate of Youth Affairs and Sports Department, Government of Tripura on 02.04.2016 and also for quashing the memorandum No.F.1(3-22)-DYAS/Estt/KS/2016/16017-25 dated 04.03.2017 issued by the Additional Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Education(YAS) Department [Annexure-K to the writ petition] for being grossly in contravention to the provisions of the Die-in-harness Scheme as framed by the respondents. 3. It is apparent from the memorandum dated 04.03.2017 [Annexure-K to the writ petition] that the family of the deceased employee was offered a sum of Rs.100,000/-(one lakh) as the financial assistance as there was no eligible person in the family of the deceased government employee to get the appointment under the said scheme. The petitioner has refused that financial assistance and insisted 4. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that within the prescribed period as provided under the Die-in-harness Scheme, the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme with necessary testimonials on 26.08.2016 [see the application dated 26.08.2016, Annexure-F to the writ petition]. It is apparent from the letter dated 23.12.2016 that the Joint Director, Youth Affairs & Sports, Tripura by his letter dated 23.12.2016 communicated to the Head of Office & DDO (Sub-Divisional YAS Office, Bishalgarh) of the deceased employee to inform whether the petitioner had married recently. The mother of the petitioner namely Smt. Kiran Sharma by the letter dated 30.12.2016 communicated to the Sports Officer, H.O. & DDO, Sub-Divisional Youth Affairs and Sports, Bishalgarh, Sepahijala, Tripura that the petitioner was married on 12.05.2012 and her daughter came back to her after about one and half year as her daughter’s husband, who is unemployed, took shelter in her family. 5. In this perspective, the respondents assessed the petitioner as not eligible to get the compassionate appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme. 5. In this perspective, the respondents assessed the petitioner as not eligible to get the compassionate appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme. By the memorandum dated 04.03.2017, the respondents had proposed for financial assistance to the tune of Rs.100,000/- (1 lakh) as no eligible person was available in the family of the deceased government employee to get the compassionate appointment. The petitioner has categorically averred in the writ petition that without calling the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bishalgarh in terms of the well-laid procedure under the Die-in-harness Scheme, the respondents rejected her prayer for compassionate appointment, commensurate to her qualification. As such, there was no physical inquiry to ascertain whether the petitioner has been living with her widow mother or not. However, the petitioner and her mother has refused to accept that financial assistance as there is eligible person to get the compassionate appointment in the family of the deceased employee. On 22.08.2016, the petitioner had submitted the statement supported by affidavit undertaking that the petitioner would maintain all the family members after her appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme. But no positive action came forth and hence, the petitioner has approached this court for the directions as stated above. 6. The respondents have averred in their reply that the petitioner is married to one Bapi Acharya and thus, it is clear that the petitioner has not separated herself from her husband. But in the reply it has been clearly admitted no report was asked from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as required by the said scheme : “Therefore, the authority was of the view that there is no ground for giving appointment on compassionate ground or admissibility therefore, no further report was obtained from concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate.” 7. It is not in dispute that by the memorandum No.F.1(1)-GA(P&T)/92(L) dated 24.09.2011 the definition of ‘family’ has been revised from the earlier one and now it reads as under : “…………………. 2. It is not in dispute that by the memorandum No.F.1(1)-GA(P&T)/92(L) dated 24.09.2011 the definition of ‘family’ has been revised from the earlier one and now 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 brother and unmarried sister and (viii) dependent widow daughters. 8. The respondents have admitted that they were under impression that the petitioner was living with her husband and as such, the petitioner cannot be given compassionate appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme. It has been also admitted that as per the scheme, no report from the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate to ascertain whether the petitioner is eligible to get the compassionate appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme or not was obtained. From the general guidelines for giving the employment or financial assistance under the Die-in-harness Scheme it appears that Annexure-3 is the format in which the report is to be furnished by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned, but such report was not asked but the case of the petitioner has been discarded vide notification No.F.1(2)-GA(P&T)/15 dated 26.12.2015. Thus, it is apparent that proper inquiry was not carried out in terms of this scheme. 9. Having observed this deficiency, the petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the very process. However, this court had asked for the entire file for scrutiny. But Mr. Nath, learned Addl. G.A. has submitted that no report from the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate is available with the proforma followed for granting employment of the dependant of government employee who died while in service or retired on invalid pension. After Annexure-2, there is no Annexure-3 in the records as produced. The records contain the educational qualification, family ration card etc. from where it appears that the petitioner has been living with the widow of the deceased employee. After Annexure-2, there is no Annexure-3 in the records as produced. The records contain the educational qualification, family ration card etc. from where it appears that the petitioner has been living with the widow of the deceased employee. However, with the reply, the respondents have filed a copy of the page from the ordinary residents register [Annexure-R/1] to show that the petitioner is married but at the same time, from the said registry it is apparent that the petitioner was living with her widow mother at Uttar Brajapur, District – Sepahijala. 10. Having regard to these averments and inability of producing the inquiry report from the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, this court is persuaded to hold that the petitioner is living with her widow mother, meaning in the family of the deceased employee. The pertinent question whether the married daughter can be excluded because of her marital status needs to be attended by this court. In this regard this court in Smt. Parna Chakraborty versus State of Tripura & Others [judgment and order dated 16.02.2018 delivered in WP(C) No.1141 of 2017] has observed as under : “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. In the case in hand, the documents produced by the petitioner which remained undisputed by the respondents, clearly show that the petitioner has been living with the widow of the deceased employee on the day of death and thereafter, and as such, the petitioner cannot be excluded on the ground that she has been living separately from other members of the family of the deceased employee and thus, she cannot be deprived of the employment under the Die-in-harness Scheme. 12. Having perused the records as above, the respondents are under obligation to provide the petitioner compassionate appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme, commensurate to her qualification. Accordingly, it is ordered. 13. 12. Having perused the records as above, the respondents are under obligation to provide the petitioner compassionate appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme, commensurate to her qualification. Accordingly, it is ordered. 13. The respondents shall consider the appointment of the petitioner within a period of 3(three) months from the day when the petitioner shall produce a copy of this order to the respondents. In the result, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.