ORDER Heard learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the private respondents. 2. It is not in dispute that the private respondents/writ petitioners were entitled to a consideration for compassionate appointment on account of death of the bread earner of the family in harness. Under the relevant policy decision their cases were considered but instead of granting them appointment against class-III or class-IV posts under the government, they were appointed on the post of Panchayat Teacher/Block Teacher during the years 2007-2008. 3. The respondents/writ petitioners joined the posts offered to them but subsequently filed representations and on considering their grievances, they were again subjected to selection process by the concerned committee and on the recommendations of the committee they were offered appointment on class-III posts in the government. In view of such offer the writ petitioners resigned from the post of Panchayat/Block Teacher and submitted their joining on the class-III posts. On receipt of some complaint, the District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara passed an order to stay their joining and referred the matter for opinion to the General Administration Department, State Government. 4. On account of order passed by the District Magistrate payment of salary to the writ petitioners was disrupted and hence they filed writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 1252/2012 which has been allowed by the writ Court by order under appeal dated 11.5.2011 and a direction has been issued to the respondents to release arrears of salary to the petitioners from the date they submitted their initial joining on the class-III posts, within two months. The writ Court also directed the authorities to accept the joining and allow the writ petitioners to work on their respective posts and start payment of salary immediately. 5. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar, the appellant has submitted on the basis of a full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Rajiv Ranjan Kumar, 2010 (3) PLJR 294 , that the state government has already withdrawn the earlier policy decision and under a new circular dated 22.6.2009 an alternative arrangement has been made that if the teachers serving in the government schools die in harness, their legal heirs can be granted compassionate appointment on the post of Panchayat/Block Teacher. 6. 6. No doubt the full Bench judgment has upheld the changed policy decision of the state government dated 22.6.2009 but the issue in the present appeal is not the validity of the changed policy decision but whether the action of the authorities in refusing to accept the joining leading to disruption of service and salary to the writ petitioners is justified or not. It is evident that in the years 2007-2008 when the writ petitioners were allowed compassionate appointment, the new policy decision dated 22.6.2009 considered by the full Bench was not in existence and under the old policy decision the writ petitioners had to be considered for appointment against class-III or class-IV posts as per their eligibility and suitability. Clearly the authorities committed a wrong in ignoring the earlier policy decision and perhaps it was on this account that the writ petitioners were re-considered by the concerned committee and on being found suitable, were offered class-III posts. It was in view of such offer that the writ petitioners altered their posts to their disadvantage by resigning from post of Panchayat/Block Teacher and submitted joining against class-III posts. 7. In such circumstances, in our considered view, the writ Court rightly granted appropriate relief to the writ petitioners by directing that their joining should be accepted and they should be allowed to work and get salary from the date they have submitted their initial joining. 8. We find no good reason to interfere in the matter, the appeal is therefore dismissed.