Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this application the petititoner has impugned the order dated 27.4.98 passed by respondent no.5 on the basis ot a letter of the respondent no.3 dated 16.4.98, subsequently communicated by respondent no.4. 3. The uncontroverted factual background is that the petitioners father, Baidyanath Das, and mother, Lalita Devi, both were Government servants. The father retired from service sometimes in 1995 and the mother died in harness on 21.10.96. Regarding death of Lalita Devi petitioners father informed her superior on 5.11.96 with a request to communicate the same to the higher officer. Subsequently the petitioner made an application for his appointment on the compassionate ground after getting verification report and obtaining, necessary certificate from the Prakhand Vikash Padadhikari, Chautham. The petitioner made an application on 13.1.97, which was forwarded by the Incharge Medical Officer. On 14.6.97 the District Level Committee held its meeting and considering the case of the petitioner along with other candidates, elected the petitioner for such appointment. To this effect the petitioner was informed by letter dated 10.7.97 as contained in Annexure-5. The petitioner was appointed on temporary basis as revealed from said Annexure-5. Sometimes in July, 1997 the Incharge Medical Officer requested the Officer-in-charge of Parbatta police station to make a police verification about the background of the petitioner. The said Officer-in-charge, after enquiry, sent his report to the Incharge Medical Officer giving clean chit to the petitioner. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Khagaria also called for a report from the Incharge Medical Officer and in response thereto a favourable report was sent. The report of the Incharge Medical Officer dated 7.8.97 is Annexure-7, which, inter alia, indicates that the petitioner has been appointed in place of his mother on recommendation of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Khagaria, where his mother was posted against a sanctioned post. It was further informed that both the mother and father of the petitioner were in Government service but father had already superannuated. Even the petitioner was asked to produce all the certificates in original and 4 passport size photographs, which was duly complied with by the petitioner and only thereafter appointment letter dated 12.8.97 was issued appointing him on Class III post on compassionate ground in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800 along with other emoluments. This appointment letter is Annexure-9. Even the petitioner was asked to produce all the certificates in original and 4 passport size photographs, which was duly complied with by the petitioner and only thereafter appointment letter dated 12.8.97 was issued appointing him on Class III post on compassionate ground in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800 along with other emoluments. This appointment letter is Annexure-9. Even the petitioner came through Medical Test and, as such, he started working on the said post. Subsequently when his salary was stopped, he wrote a letter to the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, which was forwarded by the Incharge Medical Officer, Balha Bazar on 8.12.97 (Annexure-12). However, even thereafter when no salary was paid to the petitioner he sent a legal notice and it appears that thereafter the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar intimated the other officers about the Government resolution regarding compassionate ground. According to him if the father and mother both were in Government service then the appointment on compassionate ground is not to be accepted, even though one of them has retired from the Government service. This letter of the Deputy Secretary is dated 16.4.98 as contained in Annexure-16. As noticed above immediately after this letter from the Deputy Secretary the service of the petitioner was terminated. 4. Being noticed, a counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no.5. Chief Medical Officer, Khagaria, in which the Government letter no. 13293 dated 5.10.91 of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department has been annexed as Annexure-A. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that in view of this letter of the Government no appointment can be made on compassionate ground of the dependent of such Government servants where both the parents are in service and one of them had died. 6. In my view, this argument is not sustainable, as the learned counsel for the State has not been able to appreciate the very letter of the Government, which, inter alia, says: 1(5) "YADI PATI-PATNI DONO SARKARI SEVAWON MAI HO AUR KISI EK Kl MIRTU HO JAE TO WAISI ISTHITI MAI ANUKAMPA KE ADHAR PAR NIYUKTI KA LABH UNKE PARIWAR KE KISI ASHRIT KO NAHI MILEGA". 7. 7. From a bare perusal of this resolution it is clear that if both husband and wife are in Government service and if one of them dies even in harness, no appointment can be made to any of his dependents on compassionate ground. It means that when out of the husband and wife, if one dies but the other remains in service then in such circumstances only, the dependent cannot get any appointment on compassionate ground. On the other hand, in the case in hand, though both father and mother of the petitioner were in service but admittedly the petitioners father retired from service in 1995. Petitioners mother, Lalita Devi, was in service when her husband retired but died in harness on 21.10.96. Therefore, when the petitioner applied for his appointment on compassionate ground, admittedly, none of his parents was in service. Under these circumstances, in my view, the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated by the concerned authority by wrong interpretation of the said Government resolution/letter. Moreover, it is apparent that before the petitioner was appointed, not only police verification but his entire family background was scrutinised by the concerned authority and on the basis of that report the Committee for Compassionate appointment approved the appointment of the petitioner and the petitioner joined his post. 8. In reply to the statements made in paragraph-15 in relation to Annexure-7, the answering respondents has merely stated that Annexure-7 is a mere police verification given by the Medical Officer Incharge and "it is not attributed to the appointment whether legitimate or not." 9. I fail to understand the implication of that statement. It was no where stated that police verification or the report of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Medical Officer was wrong or the petitioner suppressed any material fact from the authority. Under these circumstances, in my view, without giving any notice to the petitioner his services could not have been terminated by the authority. 10. In the result, the application is allowed. The order as contained in Annexure-17 and 18 dated 27.4.98 and 30.4.98 are quashed. The concerned authorities are directed to pay the entire back salary to the petitioner from the date when the petitioner was admittedly appointed on compassionate ground. The payment must be made within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.