JUDGMENT : Aggrieved by the order dated 10.07.2020, passed by the learned Single Judge, in CWPOA No.817 of 2019, titled Baldev Ram versus State of H.P. and others, in dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner is in appeal. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s father was working as a Dozer Operator with the respondent-Department. He died in harness, leaving behind his wife, two sons and a daughter. The petitioner, being one of the dependents, namely, the son, sought for appointment on compassionate grounds. The affidavits of the other legal representatives, entitled to seek employment, were also filed, stating therein that they have no objection for the son getting the employment. The respondents, communicated the petitioner in terms of letter dated 13.06.2011, vide Annexure P-4 to the writ petition, which reads as follows:- “The employment case as received vide letter under reference is returned herewith, with the remarks that as per present policy of the Govt., this department is considering only those cases where the applicant is a widow or case of those applicants whose both parents are not alive.” 3. Questioning the same, the writ petition was filed. 4. The learned Single Judge, by placing reliance on the objections filed by the respondents-State, based on the clarification by the Finance Department, vide letter dated 28.05.2011, rejected the plea of the petitioner. The clarification as made by the Finance Department, was produced by the respondents-State in terms of communication dated 15.07.2010, vide Annexure R-1 to the writ petition, which reads as follows:- “On the above subject, I am directed to say that as per present policy of the Government, this department is considering those cases where the applicant is a widow or cases of those applicants whose both parents are not alive. It is, therefore, requested that for the present only those cases may be sent to this department where applicant is a widow and cases of applicants whose both parents are not alive.” 5. Questioning the same, the instant appeal is filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the question of considering the case of the petitioner only if both parents are not alive, is not found in the policy. That the policy does not make a distinction between the existence of one or other parent. Questioning the same, the instant appeal is filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the question of considering the case of the petitioner only if both parents are not alive, is not found in the policy. That the policy does not make a distinction between the existence of one or other parent. Hence, the finding of the learned Single Judge, based on the clarification of the Financial Department’s communication dated 15.07.2010, is erroneous. 7. Ms. Seema Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, disputes the same. She contends that the respondents are guided by the communication dated 15.07.2010 issued by the concerned department and the department has held that the applicant can be considered if both parents are not alive, is based on the clarification issued by the Finance Department. Hence, the impugned order is in tune with such a clarification. Therefore, she pleads that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. 8. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate interference in the impugned order is called for. 9. We have considered the policy which governs the petitioner, namely, the Policy of the Year 1990. The same indicates the priority of appointment of legal representatives of the deceased, as stated in Clause 17.1.4 of Chapter 17 of the Hand Book on Personnel Matters, Vol.I (Second Edition), Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Personnel, which reads as follows:- “17.1.4 Priority for employment assistance The employment assistance under this scheme is to be allowed in order of priority as under:- (i) In the case of married Government servants:- (a) Widow/Widower (b) Son (c) Unmarried daughter (ii) In the case of unmarried Government servants:- (a) Father (b) Mother (c) Brother (d) Unmarried sister.” 10. We do not find any classification so far as the existence of one or both parents are concerned. It only says that priority will be given in the case of a married government servant to the widow/widower, son or unmarried daughter in that priority. Anyone in the said list, could apply for appointment on compassionate grounds provided the others in order of priority, do not accept the same. However, the case of both the parents, being alive, is alien to the policy. We do not find that the Policy as such has been amended to include such a classification. Anyone in the said list, could apply for appointment on compassionate grounds provided the others in order of priority, do not accept the same. However, the case of both the parents, being alive, is alien to the policy. We do not find that the Policy as such has been amended to include such a classification. It is only based on the communication by the Finance Department. 11. We are of the view that any inter-departmental communication cannot form law. The law would have to be such as envisaged. Since the policy has not been amended, we do not find that the impugned order could be sustained. Even otherwise, we do not find any justification for the Government to say that both parents should not be alive and only then the priority could be given. Hence, we are of the view that the appeal requires to be succeeded. 12. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 10.07.2020, passed by the learned Single Judge, in CWPOA No.817 of 2019, titled Baldev Ram versus State of H.P. and others, is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds, within a period of eight weeks from today, provided the petitioner satisfies the other conditions. The appeal is disposed off.