JUDGMENT : Akil Kureshi, J . This appeal is filed by the State Government to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 3 rd September 2019, passed in WP(C) No.1085/2018. Respondent herein was the original petitioner. His father was working in Group-D post under the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Tripura. While in service, the petitioner’s father expired on 10th September 2012. The petitioner, first applied for the death certificate and after obtaining the death certificate, applied to the Government authorities for issuance of a survival certificate. Survival certificate was issued on 26th November, 2013 which showed that the deceased was survived by his 3 sons and 1 daughter, the petitioner being the eldest, aged around 18 years, his other siblings were aged 14, 12 and 7 years. The mother of these children had expired on 6th January, 2011. [2] On 5th March 2014, the petitioner applied to the Government for appointment under Die-in-harness Scheme. In such application, the petitioner stated that “In our family, our father was the only source of income and he was the only employee and our mother died six years back. As a result, he was the only source of income in our family. (b) At present myself and my two minor brothers and one minor sister and their age is 13, 8 and 6 respectively and we have no guardian to maintain or to take care of our family. At present, we are passing our days with starvation. To continue education and study has become difficult and as such, to save and survive our family, I pray with folds hand for a govt. job under die-inharness scheme.” [3] In this application, the petitioner also stated that to collect survival certificate and death certificate there was some delay and “due to my ignorance and absence of any proper guidance I could not submit the prayer within the stipulated period.” [4] By an order dated 6th February 2018, the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected on the ground that he had made the application after a lapse of 1 year 5 months and 25 days from the date of death of his father. As per the Die-in-harness Scheme, such application should be made within 1 year from the date of death of the Government servant. As per the Die-in-harness Scheme, such application should be made within 1 year from the date of death of the Government servant. [5] On 23rd March 2018, the petitioner made a detailed representation to the Director of Secondary Education in which he pointed out that in order to make the application for appointment on compassionate grounds he had to submit the death certificate of the deceased, survival certificate and ration card of the family etc. He pointed out that though the death certificate was issued on 6th June 2013, due to administrative process the survival certificate was issued only on 26th November, 2013 by the SubDivisional Magistrate(SDM), Khowai. Since this survival certificate itself was issued after 1 year from the date of death of the Government servant, the application for compassionate appointment could not be made earlier. He also referred to the Die-in-harness Scheme framed by the Government under notification dated 26th December 2015, in which it is provided that the members of the family of the deceased may not be aware of the provision of Die-in-harness Scheme and the formalities to be completed for making such an application and, therefore, as soon as the department receives the information about the death of an employee while in service, communication in writing should be made to the family members of the deceased so that application for employment under the scheme can be submitted within the stipulated period. The petitioner asserted that in his case no such guidance was provided by the department which was also one of the reasons why the application for appointment under the scheme could not be made sooner. [6] This representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Director of Secondary Education by an order dated 24th April, 2018 in which in addition to reiterating that the application was made beyond the period of 1 year prescribed under the scheme, he also took the stand that the Government servant having died on 10th September 2012, Die-in-harness Scheme framed by the Government under notification dated 26th December 2015 would not be applicable. [7] At that stage, the petitioner approached the High Court. In the petition, the petitioner pointed out that he could not file the application within 1 year prescribed since obtaining the death certificate and survival certificate took considerable time. [7] At that stage, the petitioner approached the High Court. In the petition, the petitioner pointed out that he could not file the application within 1 year prescribed since obtaining the death certificate and survival certificate took considerable time. He also pointed out that he was barely 18 years of age at the time of death of his father and his mother had predeceased the father. He pointed out that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community, had studied only up to Standard-IX and the family had no other source of income. [8] The respondents appeared and filed reply and raised the simple ground of the application of the petitioner being time barred. The petitioner’s explanation that obtaining necessary documents in support of the application took considerable time was opposed. [9] The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment allowed the writ petition making following observations : “[12] Having appreciated the submission made by the counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that there is no dispute that the delay of 5 months and 25 days has occurred in filing the application. But the reason for such delay has attracted the notice of this court that the survival certificate was issued on 26.11.2013 whereas the prayer for survival certificate was made to the SDM, Khowai on 05.07.2013. It further appears that after death of the employee, no assistance or guidance from the government was available to the family of the deceased employee for filing the said application in time. The petitioner had expected a positive response from the government. The delay of 5 months and 25 days cannot be attributed to the petitioner or family. They were prevented by the administrative logjam. Even there was no assistance from the Department of the deceased employee (herein the Education Department, Govt. of India) for action in time according to the Memorandum dated 21.04.2001 issued by General Administration (P&T) Department under File No.1(1)- GA(P&T)/97(L) dated 21.04.2001. [13] In view of the above, this court is of the considered view that the respondents shall take step to re-consider the matter of the compassionate appointment of the petitioner treating the application for compassionate appointment under the Die-in-Harness scheme filed in time [See Tapan Debnath versus The State of Tripura]. [13] In view of the above, this court is of the considered view that the respondents shall take step to re-consider the matter of the compassionate appointment of the petitioner treating the application for compassionate appointment under the Die-in-Harness scheme filed in time [See Tapan Debnath versus The State of Tripura]. Hence, the respondent No.2 shall consider the petitioner to provide compassionate appointment within a period of 2(two) months from the date when the petitioner shall provide a copy of this order to the respondent No.2. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.” [10] It is undisputed that the Government of Tripura under notifications and orders issued from time to time has implemented the schemes for appointment of a family member of the Government servant who dies while in service. These schemes are popularly referred to as “Diein-harness Scheme”. Under memorandum dated 27th March 2003, a comprehensive scheme for such purpose was framed. From time to time thereafter memoranda and clarifications have been issued by the Government touching one aspect or the other of the Die-in-harness Scheme. Under an office memorandum dated 26th December 2011, in partial modification of earlier instructions the Government provided a procedure to be observed while providing employment or assistance to an eligible member of the family of an employee who dies while in service. Paragraph (i) of this memorandum provides that the application for employment or financial assistance should be made to the appropriate authority within 1 year after the death of the Government servant. Paragraphs (ii) and (iv) of this memorandum which are of considerable importance read as under : “ii. Sometimes the members of the family of the deceased may not be aware of the provisions of the Die-in-harness scheme and the formalities to be observed in submitting the application (i.e. time limit of submission of application, consequence of submission of false documents etc.). Therefore, the Department, when they get information about the death of any of their employees, while in service shall immediately communicate in written to the respective family so that application for employment/financial assistance under Diein-harness scheme from the family of the deceased should be submitted before the appropriate authority in prescribed manner within the stipulated period. * * * iv. Therefore, the Department, when they get information about the death of any of their employees, while in service shall immediately communicate in written to the respective family so that application for employment/financial assistance under Diein-harness scheme from the family of the deceased should be submitted before the appropriate authority in prescribed manner within the stipulated period. * * * iv. The respective Department shall have to dispose the cases of die-in-harness where the application is complete in all respects within 6(six) months from the date of receipt of the claim/application submitted by the applicant.” [11] Under memorandum dated 26 th May 2012, the Government of Tripura published a revised employment policy. Though this memorandum pertained to employment under from sources, paragraph (4) thereof pertained to employment to dependents of persons who dies-in-harness and essentially provided that in order to ensure that family of Government servant who dies while in service does not suffer from extreme financial difficulties, employment would be permitted to one of the dependents of the deceased Government servant, provided there is no other member of the family already in employment of the State Government, Central Government or Corporations and undertakings of the State or the Central Government. [12] It can thus be seen that though the basis for claim of compassionate appointment of the dependant of a Government servant who dies after 26th May 2012 would arise from the said memorandum, the procedure for making applications and for processing such applications, earlier instructions of the Government of Tripura continued. This revised employment policy did not contain detailed provisions for making and considering such applications. [13] Under a notification dated 26th December 2015, the Government framed a comprehensive scheme for die-in-harness cases. Paragraph 16 of the said scheme provides that all existing orders and instructions concerning Die-in-harness Scheme stand repealed. There have been subsequent modifications issued by Government of Tripura in this respect, however, for our purpose it is not necessary to take note of these subsequent schemes. [14] We may recall, the petitioner had raised 2 grounds to explain why he could not make the application for appointment within 1 year from the date of the death of his father. His first ground was that the authorities took considerable time in issuing death certificate and survival certificate and without which he could not have filed the application for appointment. His first ground was that the authorities took considerable time in issuing death certificate and survival certificate and without which he could not have filed the application for appointment. His second ground was that his mother had pre-deceased his father and at the time of the death of the father he was the eldest of the children at the age of 18 years. He had two brothers and a sister younger than him. His father was the only earning member of the family. The family was left in penury on account of death of the sole earning member of the family. The department had provided no assistance or guidance to enable him to file application for compassionate appointment as provided in the notification dated 26th December, 2015. [15] The department had contended that there is no scope for condoning the delay in filing the application for compassionate appointment, no matter what the reasons and in any case, the reasons were not valid. It was also contended that the father of the petitioner having died in the year 2012, Die-in-harness Scheme of 26th December, 2015 was not applicable. [16] In our opinion, both the objections of the department are not valid and the learned Single Judge has correctly rejected them while allowing the writ petition. Salient features of this case are as under : (i) The mother of the petitioner had expired on 6th January, 2011. (ii) The father who was a Government servant died on 10th September, 2012 thus leaving a family of 4 children orphaned. (iii) At the time of the death of the father, petitioner was the eldest of the siblings at the age of 18 years. His other two brothers and sister were aged about 14, 12 and 7 years respectively. The petitioner had studied only up to Standard-IX and the family belongs to SC community. (iv) The respondents have not averred at any place either in the two orders that the Director of Secondary Education passed rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointment or in the affidavit-in-reply filed in the petition that any guidance or assistance was provided to the family to enable the petitioner to make application for compassionate appointment. (iv) The respondents have not averred at any place either in the two orders that the Director of Secondary Education passed rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointment or in the affidavit-in-reply filed in the petition that any guidance or assistance was provided to the family to enable the petitioner to make application for compassionate appointment. (v) After the death of the father, the petitioner first applied for issuance of death certificate which was issued on 6th June, 2013 and thereafter the survival certificate was issued by the SDM on 26th November, 2013. Thus, considerable time was consumed by the authorities for issuance of these certificates. In order to make an application for compassionate appointment these documents were necessary. If any application was made without these supporting documents, the same would have been rejected as invalid. [17] The entire issue must be seen in background of such facts. Firstly, the Government cannot reject the application for compassionate appointment when considerable delay in making such application can be attributed to the essential documents required to be filed in support of the application being supplied by the State-authorities late. The respondents have put up a vague defence that though the petitioner has disclosed the date of issuance of survival certificate, he has not stated as to when he made such an application. The Government which has the entire State machinery at its command, cannot take such a technical ground. If the stand of the respondents was that the petitioner himself was responsible for approaching the SDM for issuance of the survival certificate late, nothing prevented the respondents from gathering such data from the concerned office and presenting it before the Court. [18] This ground was sufficient to allow the case of the petitioner. However, additionally we also find that the State-machinery completely failed in providing necessary guidance to the petitioner making him aware about the contents of such a scheme for compassionate appointment and providing necessary assistance to enable him to file such an application. The respondents are right in pointing out that the Die-in-harness Scheme framed by the Government under notification dated 26th December, 2015 would not be applicable in the present case. The petitioner, therefore, cannot rely on the said scheme to contend that the concerned department was obliged to provide necessary assistance and guidance after the death of his father. The respondents are right in pointing out that the Die-in-harness Scheme framed by the Government under notification dated 26th December, 2015 would not be applicable in the present case. The petitioner, therefore, cannot rely on the said scheme to contend that the concerned department was obliged to provide necessary assistance and guidance after the death of his father. This objection though valid, presents only part of the picture since the earlier scheme which was prevalent when the father of the petitioner died also had similar provisions. It is for this purpose that we have reproduced the relevant portion of the memorandum dated 26th December, 2011 in which also it is provided that the members of the family of the deceased may not be aware of the provision of the Die-in-harness Scheme and the formalities to be observed in submitting the application such as, the time limit for making the application and the consequences of submitting false documents etc. Therefore, whenever the department gets information about the death of any of the employees while in service it shall immediately communicate in writing to the family of the deceased so that applications for employment or financial assistance under the scheme can be submitted before the authority in prescribed manner within the stipulated time. This memorandum also requires that any such application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be decided within 6 months. We have noticed that in the subsequent memorandum dated 26 th May 2012, while publishing revised employment policy, a provision for appointment on compassionate ground has been made, however this does not supersede all previous instructions and the procedure laid down under such Government instructions. Thus, the requirement of providing assistance to the family member of the deceased Government servant, as contained in office memorandum dated 26th December 2011, was prevailing at the time when the father of the petitioner died. Considerable stress has been laid on this requirement so that the eligible member of the family can make application either for appointment or financial assistance within the time prescribed. This provision envisages that in many cases the family members of the deceased may not be aware about such a scheme and the requirements of this scheme including the time period for making the application and consequences of not applying within time. This provision envisages that in many cases the family members of the deceased may not be aware about such a scheme and the requirements of this scheme including the time period for making the application and consequences of not applying within time. Case of the petitioner is a classical example of a valuable right being destroyed on account of lack of understanding and means to make application for appointment. It is therefore that the scheme requires the authority concerned to educate the family of the deceased Government servant of his rights under the scheme. Instead of perusing this litigation as adversarial, the department had applied its mind to the real issue; this entire litigation could have been avoided. The stand taken by the department is totally insensitive. [19] The respondents never provided any such assistance to the family of the deceased Government servant in the present case. This would have a chilling effect on the right of the petitioner to seek employment under the scheme. The sole earning member of the family suddenly died. His wife had died shortly before that. The deceased couple had left behind four rather young children. The petitioner who was the eldest was about 18 years of age at the time of the death of his father and he had studied only up to Standard-IX. It was too much to expect the family members of the deceased Government servant in such a case to be fully aware about the Die-in-harness Scheme and detailed requirements for making application under the said scheme. This is also the reason why the Government cannot oppose the application of the petitioner for appointment on the ground that the same was filed after some delay. [20] We may recall, under the office memorandum dated 26th December 2011, it has been provided that the application for compassionate appointment would be decided within 6 months from the date of receipt. In the present case, the petitioner had made the application on 5th March, 2014. Such application was decided by the Director of Secondary Education on 6th February, 2018. In the present case, the petitioner had made the application on 5th March, 2014. Such application was decided by the Director of Secondary Education on 6th February, 2018. It is unfortunate that the State authority which has not only the necessary wherewithal but also the entire machinery at its command and which has taken nearly 4 years for deciding the application of the petitioner against the time frame of 6 months envisaged under the scheme, has opposed the petitioner’s application for appointment on the ground of delay of a few months, completely ignoring the ground realities and relevant facts. Rather, unfortunately, even the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge could not satisfy the State authorities. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- which shall be paid over to the petitioner by the appellants within four weeks from today. The time limit granted by the learned Single Judge to carry out the directions contained in the impugned judgment is extended up to 30th June, 2021. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.