Judgment V.N.Sinha, J. 1. Petitioners are sons/wife of Md. Hasibul Hussain/Arjun Prasad Pandey/Ram Prit Singh/Sarbjeet Singh @ Sarbjeet Singh Yadav/Shibu Rai/ Chandradeep Paswan who while serving as Pump Operator/Forest Guard/Under Secretary/Peon in the Minor Irrigation Division, Samastipur/Sanjay Gandhi Zoological Park at Patna/Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna/Office of Incharge Magistrate, District Control Room, Patna/Forest Department under Van Karya Niyojana Pramandal, Magadh Anchal, Patna/Public Health Engineering Department, Patna West Division, Patna became traceless and continues to be so even till today. Invoking the presumption under Sec. 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 petitioners served a legal notice dated 6.10.2004/representations dated 14.7.2005 and 2.8.2005 stating, inter alia, that as their father has not been heard for more than seven years they be presumed to be dead and they (petitioners) be considered for compassionate appointment in the light of the instruction of the State Government contained in letter bearing no. 13293 dated 5th October, 1991 but their request has been refused by the Executive Engineer/ Director, Sanjay Gandhi Biological Park, Patna/Board Authority/District Compassionate Committee under letter no. 49 dated 10.2.2005, Annexure-9/Office Order No. 122 dated 31st August, 2005; Annexure-2/Memo No. 260 dated 3.2.2004, Annexure-5/Memo No. 1629 dated 2.8.2005, Annexure-8 with reference to the instruction of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar/ Minor Irrigation Department contained in letter no. 4960 dated 1.10.2003/letter no. 1314 dated 28.7.2005/ Letter No. 4890 dated 17.7.2003/Letter No. 4890 dated 17.4.2003 as there is no instruction of the State Government to consider the case of those whose father/husband has become traceless and have been declared dead for appointment on compassionate ground. Petitioners further assail the order of the Collector, Samastipur issued under the signature of the Establishment Deputy Collector, Samastipur bearing letter no. 1084 dated 22.11.2003, Annexure-10, which is addressed to the Executive Engineer as thereunder also it has been stated that the claim of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be considered as there is no instruction of the State Government to consider the case of those dependents whose father/husband have become traceless and have been declared dead. 1084 dated 22.11.2003, Annexure-10, which is addressed to the Executive Engineer as thereunder also it has been stated that the claim of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be considered as there is no instruction of the State Government to consider the case of those dependents whose father/husband have become traceless and have been declared dead. In support of the prayer made in the writ petition learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the instructions of the State Government contained in Circular Letter No. 9739 dated 26th November, 1997 Annexure-12 to the supplementary affidavit dated 9.7.2007, whereunder State Government had taken a decision to treat Government servants traceless for more than seven years to be dead with further direction to the authorities to consider the case of their dependants for appointment on compassionate ground. In this connection, he has further relied on Sec. 108 of the Evidence Act and the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Rajiv Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2004(1) PLJR 36 and with reference to the said judgment it is submitted that after passage of seven years from the date of Government servant becoming traceless the Government servant shall be presumed dead and the case of his wards shall be considered for compassionate appointment in terms of the provisions contained in Circular Letter No. 13293 dated 5th October, 1991. He has further relied on another judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Kamla Devi and Sudhir Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2005(2) PLJR 155 and with reference to the said judgment it is submitted that for being considered for compassionate appointment not only actual death but also presumed death is required to be taken into account. 2. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 4. 2. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 4. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar/Respondent No.1, Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna/ Respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Patna and has submitted with reference to the instructions of the State Government contained in Letter No. 281 dated 1.2.2006/ Standing Order No. 805 dated 7.9.1998/ as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit that there is no provision/instruction of the State Government to consider the case of the dependent of those who have become traceless and are presumed dead and with reference to the said Circular it is submitted that as there is no provision/instruction, the case of the petitioners who are the wards/dependents of the traceless Government Servants shall not be considered for appointment on compassionate ground, as it is well known that appointment on compassionate ground is made only in the light of the policy decision/instructions of the State Government and when there is no such instruction of the State Government to consider the case of the dependents of those who have become traceless then the case of the petitioners cannot be considered. Learned counsel for the State further pointed out that as the Government servants disappeared seven years earlier and their family members/dependents including the petitioners managed to survive in the intervening seven years then their case cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate ground as appointment on compassionate ground is not a mode of appointment but is only given to a family in distress who is otherwise not able to survive without such appointment and as their other family members/dependents have been able to survive during the intervening seven years, they cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate ground as otherwise the very purpose of appointment on compassionate ground shall become meaningless. In support of his aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the State has relied on the judgments in the case of Bishwa Nath Banerjee vs. State Bank of India & Ors., reported in 2002(2) PLJR 503 , in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. The State of Haryana and Others, reported in (1994)4 Supreme Court Cases 138, in the case of Kunti Devi vs. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Syndicate Bank Staff Department and Others, reported in 2001(4) PLJR 426 , in the case of National Institute of Technology & Ors. vs. Niraj Kumar Singh, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1169 and in the case of Union Bank of India & Ors. vs. M.T. Latheesh, reported in 2006 AIR SCW 4626. 3. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings filed by them including different circulars relied on during the hearing of the writ petition, namely, Circular Letter No. 13293 dated 5th October, 1991, Circular Letter No. 9739 dated 26th November, 1997, Annexure-12 to the supplementary affidavit, and the Circular Letter No. 281 dated 1.2.2006, Annexure-A, I am of the view that the State Government has already taken a decision which is contained in Circular Letter No. 9739 dated 26th November, 1997, Annexure-12 to the supplementary affidavit to consider the case of the dependents of those Government Servants who have remained traceless for seven years for appointment on compassionate ground which decision has not been revised in the subsequent Circular bearing Letter No. 281 dated 1.2.2006, Annexure-A. In the circumstances, I have no option but to quash the order bearing Letter No. 49 dated 10.2.2005, Annexure9/Office Order No. 122 dated 31st August, 2005, Annexure-2/Memo No. 260 dated 3.2.2004, Annexure-5/Memo No. 1629 dated 2.8.2005, Annexure-8 and to direct that the State Government is duty bound to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the instructions contained in Circular Letter No. 9739 dated 26th November, 1997, Annexure-12 to the supplementary affidavit but while considering their case for such appointment the State Government/competent authority of the department concerned shall take into account the family income of the traceless Government Servant from other sources; movable/immovable properties on the basis of which the family survived during the preceding years. Such information is sought for in the application form for compassionate appointment as provided in Circular Letter dated 5.10.1991 and if the family members/dependents survived the intervening seven years in penury then they shall be granted compassionate appointment, otherwise not. The case of the petitioners for compassionate appointment shall be considered as early as possible, in any case within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department/ Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department/Environment and Forest Department, Bihar, Patna/Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna/District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Committee, Patna. 4. These writ applications are, accordingly, disposed of.