JUDGMENT : Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties for final disposal of the petition. 2. Petitioner has challenged a communication dated 28th January, 2019 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of Tripura to the Director General of Police, Tripura by which it is conveyed that the petitioner herein cannot be appointed on compassionate grounds since her father-in-law is working as Group-D employee in Education Department of the State Government. 3. Brief facts are as under: Husband of the petitioner was employed as a Police Constable in the Home Department of State of Tripura. At a young age of about 30 years, while in service, he died on 17.05.2016. The deceased left behind his widow, the present petitioner. The couple had no children. The widow of the Government servant applied for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme of the State Government on 07.03.2017. This application was rejected by the impugned communication dated 28th of January, 2019, which reads as under: "Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No. 7355(1)/F. 16 (510)-PHQ/2018, dated 16/11/2018, on the subject mentioned above and to inform you that the matter was referred to Finance Department. In response, Finance Department has informed that Father-in-Law of Smti. Manika Debbarma is working as Group-D in Education Department, accordingly the proposal has been regretted. This is for your kind information and necessary action." 4. Appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel Mr. T.D. Majumder took me through the Die-in-harness scheme formulated by the State Government under Resolution dated 26th December, 2015, which was prevalent at the relevant time when the Government servant expired and when the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds came to be decided. On the basis of the provisions contained in the said scheme, the counsel submitted that the respondents have committed a serious error in rejecting the application of the petitioner only on the ground that her father-in-law is employed in Government service. He submitted that the father of the deceased Government servant, who is in a gainful employment, would not come within the definition of the term 'family' as per the said scheme. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate opposed the petition contending that the Department has correctly interpreted the scheme and refused appointment since one member of the family is employed in Government service. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate opposed the petition contending that the Department has correctly interpreted the scheme and refused appointment since one member of the family is employed in Government service. He submitted that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a matter of right. 6. The State of Tripura had framed scheme for appointment of dependents of Government servants, who died-in-harness. Such schemes have been formulated from time to time under different Notifications containing slightly different provisions. Nevertheless, the central object of these schemes has always been to provide financial assistance to members of the Government servants, who died-in-harness and who on account of sudden death of the earning member of the family, are left in destitution. The scheme framed by the Government of Tripura under the Resolution dated 26th December, 2015 was prevailing when the husband of the petitioner died, when she applied for appointment on compassionate grounds and when her application was decided by the respondents by the impugned order. In view of such facts, we may take note of the provisions contained in the said scheme. We may, however, record them. Subsequently, the State of Tripura has framed a new scheme for the same purpose under Notification dated 6th March, 2019. However, so far as the present case is concerned, it is not necessary to take note of the provisions contained in the said later scheme. 7. Under Notification dated 26th December, 2015, issued by the Government of Tripura, a consolidated scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds came to be framed, superseding the previous scheme. The preamble of the said scheme records the object of the scheme namely, to extend benefits either by an appointment in Government service on compassionate ground or to provide admissible financial assistance to an eligible dependant member of the family of a deceased Government servant in the event of deaths while in service, provided that there is no earning member in the family of the deceased. It also provides that in case, there is no eligible member of the family of the deceased Government employee, who can be appointed, one time financial assistance would be provided to the family. 8. It also provides that in case, there is no eligible member of the family of the deceased Government employee, who can be appointed, one time financial assistance would be provided to the family. 8. Thus, the very foundation of the scheme is to provide either appointment to a dependant member of the family of the deceased Government servant on compassionate ground or to provide financial assistance provided there is no earning member in the family of the deceased. This requirement of the family of the deceased not having any earning member is also embodied in the scheme. In Paragraph-1 itself where under sub-clause (II), it is provided that "Benefits of the Scheme shall not be given if there is any earning member in the family of the deceased family." 9. The term "Dependant family member" has been defined in paragraph-2 of the scheme as under: "2. Dependent family member shall cover the following- (i) wife or husband, as the case may be; (ii) legitimate children; (iii) legitimate step Children; (iv) adopted Children; (v) dependent daughter-in-law; (vi) dependent parents; (vii) dependent unmarried brother(s); (viii) dependent unmarried sister(s) and (ix) dependent widowed daughter(s)." Provided that a married son or daughter-in-law or widowed daughter, if he/she lives/used to live separately from other members of the family on or before the death of the Government employee shall not be considered as family member and at the same time he/she shall not be treated as earning member of the family of the government employee for the purpose of providing benefits under the Scheme only." 10. Paragraph-13 of the scheme contains conditions of compassionate appointment, sub-clause (i) whereof reads as under: "(i) A person who is given compassionate appointment to any post against Die-in-harness Scheme is duty-bound to maintain family members of the deceased Government servant and he/she has to give an undertaking/declaration in writing as per prescribed Format (Annexure-IV) as given below. The above provisions for submission of undertaking has been incorporated in the pro forma for issuing the offer of appointment vide Para 3(iv) of Annexure-V." 11. As noted, benefits of the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds would not be given if there is an earning member in the family of the deceased Government servant. The above provisions for submission of undertaking has been incorporated in the pro forma for issuing the offer of appointment vide Para 3(iv) of Annexure-V." 11. As noted, benefits of the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds would not be given if there is an earning member in the family of the deceased Government servant. It is in this context, the objection of the Department to the application of the petitioner for appointment namely that her father-in-law is gainfully employed, would have to be judged. As noted, paragraph-2 of the scheme defines the term "Dependent family member" as to cover 9 different relations of the deceased Government servant. Insofar as the wife or husband, legitimate children, legitimate step children and adopted children are concerned, this definition makes no requirement that such person or persons must be dependent on the deceased Government servant. In other words, whether dependent or not, the wife or the husband of the employee, his/her legitimate children, legitimate step children and adopted children would be covered within the definition of dependent family member of the deceased. 12. In juxtaposition to this, sub-clauses (v) to (ix) of Paragraph-2 of the scheme, which refers to daughter-in-law, parents, unmarried brother(s), unmarried sister(s) and widowed daughter(s), all contain a prefix of being dependent. In other words, such relations of the deceased Government servant namely, his/her daughter-in-law, parents, unmarried brother(s) and sister(s) and widowed daughter(s) would be covered within the definition of "dependent family members" only if at the time of the death they were dependent on the deceased Government servant. 13. Paragraph-2 of the said scheme, thus, makes a clear distinction between two classes of the relatives of the deceased Government servant for the purpose of defining the term "dependent family member". Those relatives referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of Paragraph-2, would be covered within the said expression irrespective of the fact whether such relatives were dependent on the deceased Government servant or not, whereas those relatives, who are referred to in sub-clauses (v) to (ix) of Paragraph-2 would be covered within the said term only if they were dependent on the deceased Government servant. This distinction gets further highlighted if one reads the proviso to Paragraph-2. This distinction gets further highlighted if one reads the proviso to Paragraph-2. This proviso provides that a married son or daughter-in-law or widowed daughter if lived separately from other members of the family on or before the death of the Government servant, would not be considered as family member, but at the same time, he/she will also not be treated as earning member of the family of the Government employee for the purpose providing benefits under the scheme. 14. In the context of later Notification dated 19.05.2017 making certain modifications in the scheme of 2015, excluding a married daughter from the purview of the benefits of the scheme, this Court in case of Smt. Debashri Chakraborty vs. The State of Tripura and others in W.P. (C) No. 562/2019, in a decision dated 18th December, 2019 had made following observations: "11. A combined reading of the said two notifications dated 26.12.2015 and 19.05.2017 would show that under the original notification the term "dependent family member" would cover besides others, legitimate children. This did not distinguish between married or unmarried son or daughter. The proviso to the said paragraph-2, however, provided that a married son or a daughter-in-law or widowed daughter if lives separately from other members of the family on or before the death of the Government servant, such person would not be considered as a family member. However, he shall also not be treated as an earning member of the family for the purpose of providing benefits under the scheme. In other words, by virtue of this proviso married son, daughter-in-law or a widowed daughter who lives separately from the deceased Government employee would not come within the purview of the term "dependent family member". At the same time, his earnings would not be taken into consideration for the purpose of granting benefit under the said scheme. Consequently, such a member would be completely delinked from the family of the deceased Government employee for the purpose of the scheme. This proviso would by implication provide that a married son, daughter-in-law or a widowed daughter who lives with the Government servant at the time of his death, would not be excluded from the purview of the term "dependent family member". This proviso would by implication provide that a married son, daughter-in-law or a widowed daughter who lives with the Government servant at the time of his death, would not be excluded from the purview of the term "dependent family member". By necessary implication, therefore, an intention in this scheme can be read on part of the policy framers not to cover a married daughter within the fold of dependent family member, particularly if she did not live with the Government servant at the time of his death." 15. The reason for making this distinction between two classes of relatives of the deceased employee is also understandable. The first class of the relatives such as wife or husband, children including step children and adopted children all belong to a class where if unable to maintain himself/herself, can claim maintenance from the employee under various provisions such as Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code or under Hindu Minority and Guardianships Act or under the relevant provisions of Hindu Marriage Act in case of marital discord between the husband and wife. As against this, the daughter-in-law, parents (unless dependent), brother or sister even if un-married and widowed daughter would not be able to raise a legal claim of maintenance unless some special provision in law has been framed. In this context, we may also refer to Paragraph-13 of the scheme 2015 in which in sub-clause (i), one of the conditions for appointment on compassionate grounds provided is that the person being so appointed would be duty bound to maintain family members of the deceased Government servant and for which purpose he/she would have to file an undertaking to this effect. Thus, under Paragraph-13 of the scheme, a condition has been imposed raising the responsibility of maintaining family members of the deceased Government servant, who is being appointed on compassionate grounds, whether in law, he/she has any such responsibility or not. 16. The matter can be looked from a slightly different angle. The petitioner has stated that after her marriage, she and her husband were residing separately from the father of the husband. They thus formed a separate unit. Under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. the petitioner cannot raise a claim for maintenance against her father-in-law even if he is earning. 16. The matter can be looked from a slightly different angle. The petitioner has stated that after her marriage, she and her husband were residing separately from the father of the husband. They thus formed a separate unit. Under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. the petitioner cannot raise a claim for maintenance against her father-in-law even if he is earning. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. limits the scope for maintenance in favour of following categories of persons: (a) "Wife of the person (b) Legitimate or illegitimate minor children (c) Legitimate or illegitimate (other than married daughter), who may be major but by reason of physical or mental abnormality or injury is unable to maintain himself and (d) Father or mother unable to maintain themselves." 17. Clearly thus, Paragraph-2 of the scheme of 2015 would cover the father of the deceased Government servant within the definition of term "dependent family member" only if he was dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his death. If he was not so dependent, he would not be covered by the definition of the said term and consequently, the fact that the father was in gainful employment, would not bar the family members of the deceased Government servant from being considered for appointment under the said scheme. This is so because in such a case, it cannot be stated that there is any earning member in the family of the deceased. The limitation imposed in sub-clause (ii) of Paragraph-1 of the scheme in such a case would not apply. 18. In the result, the respondents committed an error in rejecting the petitioner's application only on the ground that her father-in-law i.e. the father of the deceased employee was employed in the Government service. Consequently, the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for such appointment in terms of the scheme and pass appropriate order within two months from today. 19. Petition disposed accordingly.