Order Both the counsel agreed that the matter can be disposed of at the stage of order. 2. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.2.2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3357 of 2005. 3. The case of the appellant was that her husband Binoy Kumar Tiwary died in-harness. He was an employee of District Rural Development Agency (D.R.D.A.) at Buxar. Accordingly, she applied for appointment on compassionate ground under the D.R.D.A. but her application was rejected by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee on the ground that no such appointments have been made in the District of Buxar of the D.R.DA employee. Aggrieved by, the same she filed a writ petition which was rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground that rules of compassionate appointment of the State Government are (sic-f1ot?) applicable to D.R.D.A. employees. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf the appellant has contended that the D.R.D.A. is a Agency of State Government which falls under Article 14 (sic-Article 12?) of the Constitution of India, and therefore, writ can be issued to such agency to follow the scheme of compassionate appointment of the State Government. It has also been contended that even though her husband died in-harness the claim for compassionate appointment was not considered, but the rules adopted by the State Govt. would be made applicable to the D.R.D.A. and therefore, there cannot be any discrimination on the ground that no compassionate appointment has been made under the D.R.D.A., Buxar as also in other districts, as such it is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has contended as no such appointment have been made under Buxar District, therefore, the District Compassionate Appointment Committee has rejected the case of the appellant which resulted into filing of the writ petition. 6. It is admitted fact that some of the employees who were on deputation have got benefit of the scheme of compassionate appointment by the State Government and therefore, case of the appellant whose husband was permanently absorbed in the D.R.D.A. in the year 1981 itself cannot be left out on the ground that the rules are not made applicable for the D.R.D.A. employees. We are not in agreement with the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf the State that no such compassionate appointment was made in Buxar District till now and therefore benefit of scheme of compassionate appointment cannot be made applicable to the employees working in D.R.D.A.-Buxar. 7. We are also of the opinion that there cannot be any discrimination district-wise basis as the employees working in the D.R.D.A., Buxar should also be treated to be an employee of the State Govt. working under the D.R.DA agency which is an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is also observed that as the agency of the Government is also provided funds by the State Government, therefore, it also falls under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the actions are liable to be questioned under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that D.R.D.A. is bound to follow the rules which was adopted by the State Govt. in appointing the Personnel on compassionate ground whose kith and kin died in-harness working under the State Govt. Accordingly, we deem it fit and proper to remand the matter to District Magistrate, Buxar to reconsider the matter afresh in the light of the observation as stated supra. 9. With the above observation, the order of learned Single Judge is set aside and the appeal is accordingly allowed.