ORDER V. Nath, J. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner’s father died on 23.10.2010 in harness. Thereafter, the petitioner applied seeking appointment on compassionate ground being the third son and dependant. The application of the petitioner was considered by the Central Compassionate Appointment Committee in its meeting on 28.09.2011 (Annexure-7) and the Committee decided to reject the same on the ground that the first son of the deceased employee was in Government service. On the representation by the petitioner and the family members of the deceased, the matter was remitted back by the Administrative Department, as apparent from the letter dated 29.02.2012 and annexures therewith (Annexure-8), for reconsideration after finding it inconsistent with the circular no. 13293 dated 05.10.1991 and also the decision taken by the Committee on 17.03.2011 in case of Sri Mukesh Kumar. In pursuance thereof the Committee in its meeting dated 06.03.2012 considered the matter again and rejected the prayer of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. This order of the Committee is impugned in this writ application. 3. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order discloses a non-application of mind by the Committee as it is virtual repetition of the earlier decision and no consideration on the basis of the directions in the matter as issued in the remand letter of the Administrative Department has been bestowed. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that engagement/employment of one of the dependants of the deceased employee in Government service cannot be the sole ground for rejecting the claim of the dependant for compassionate appointment and in such a case the other considerations are required to be gone into. The learned senior counsel has relied on the decisions of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar v. The State of Bihar 2013 (1) P.L.J.R. 454 and unreported decisions in the case of Rajesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar in C.W.J.C. No. 1536 of 2013 and Rajeev Kumar Manjhi v. The State of Bihar in CWJC No. 15600 of 2009 annexed as Annexures-11, 12 and 15 to the writ application and the rejoinder to the supplementary counter affidavit. 4. 4. The learned counsel for the State-respondents, however, has supported the impugned order and has submitted that it has been well settled that in a case where one of the dependants of the deceased employee is already in employment in a Government service, the other dependant’s claim to be appointed on ground of compassion cannot be allowed. The learned counsel, however, has failed to substantiate his submission in response to the arguments made on behalf of the petitioner that the Committee has considered the circulars as well as its decision as mentioned by the Administrate Department while remitting back the matter for fresh consideration. 5. The facts are not in dispute that the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment after the death of his father in harness has come up for consideration before the Committee on two occasions but the same has not found favour. However, it transpires that the order passed by the Committee which has been questioned in this writ application is the repetition of the previous order and it does not disclose the consideration by the Committee on the points on the basis of which the matter has been reverted back for consideration by the Administrative Department. The issue as to whether when one of the dependants of the deceased employee is already in Government employment, the grant of appointment on compassionate ground can be allowed in favour of the other dependant has fallen for consideration before this Court in the decisions relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. It would be seemly here to take into notice the decision by the learned single judge of this Court in the case of Rajeev Kumar Manjhi v. The State of Bihar in CWJC No. 15600 of 2009 decided on 18.08.2011, a copy of which as aforementioned is annexed as Annexure-15 by the petitioner. It would be seemly here to take into notice the decision by the learned single judge of this Court in the case of Rajeev Kumar Manjhi v. The State of Bihar in CWJC No. 15600 of 2009 decided on 18.08.2011, a copy of which as aforementioned is annexed as Annexure-15 by the petitioner. From the perusal of this judgment, it appears that while considering the same issue this court has considered the decision in the case of Vishal Kumar v. The State of Bihar 2004 (2) PLJR 453 (DB), which has been strongly relied upon by the learned counsel for the State-respondents and also the another decision of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Choudhary v. The State of Bihar 2000 (4) PLJR 651 (D.B) and it has been held thereafter as follows:- “…..Any appointment on compassionate ground can be made strictly in terms of the policy regulating the same. If the policy dated 18.02.1995 provides for consideration of the claim of a second son notwithstanding the elder son being in employment, but subject to the satisfaction of the authorities with regard to the destitute and penury of the family because the employed brother was not looking after the family of the widow was also suffering on that count, the claim for compassionate appointment cannot be shut outright….” “……Thus, the crucial test to decide as to whether a person is to be appointed on compassionate ground or not is to find out whether the family has other sources of livelihood or not at the relevant time to meet the hardship, and once it is found that the financial condition is sufficient to tide over crisis, then no appointment can be made on compassionate ground and the question whether the other spouse is continuing in service or has retired is wholly immaterial.” “……….The touchstone for the exercise of the power therefore is that does the family have other sources of survival or is it left destitute. In each case therefore it is a question of fact to be arrived at after an enquiry…..” 6. In each case therefore it is a question of fact to be arrived at after an enquiry…..” 6. In view of the aforesaid decision, this Court, therefore, is inclined to quash the impugned decision of the Committee dated 06.03.2012 (Annexure-9) and remand the matter back to the Central Compassionate Appointment Committee for a decision afresh after calling for a proper inquiry report from a responsible functionary of the Government at a middle level and thereafter to take the decision in the light of the observation in the decision as mentioned above. It is expected that the Committee will bestow its consideration and take final decision expeditiously and preferably within four months from the date of receipt/production of this order. 7. The writ application is, accordingly allowed with aforesaid observations and directions.