1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR W.P.No.4768 of 2007 (Sudhakar Motiram Meshram .vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Nagpur & Ors.) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : D.D.Sinha and Mrs. Vasanti A. Naik, JJ. DATE : January 23, 2008. Heard Mr. P.M.Deshkar, Adv. for the Petitioner, Mr.R.G.Agrawal, Adv. for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and Mr.Thakre, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent No.4. In the present petition, the petitioner is claiming appointment on compassionate ground with the respondent no.2 since his father was in the employment of respondent no.2 as Regular Mazdoor and died on 14.9.2001 while in the employment. Mr.Agrawal, Adv. for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 has submitted that the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner's family pension is Rs.2,353/- p.m.; the family has also received other terminal benefits amounting to Rs.1,58,558/-; the petitioner is major and has a house of his own having four bed rooms and therefore, the petitioner is not in need of financial assistance, which can be provided only to the persons those who are needy and are in distress. The petitioner has not disputed the above referred facts on 2 which the application of the petitioner is rejected by the respondent. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. It is nodoubt true that the father of the petitioner had expired while in the employment and in the normal course, if the petitioner would not have other sufficient financial means to survive, in that event, the petitioner would have been entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground, however, the above referred factors placed before us by the respondent would show that the petitioner is not in distress nor is in need of financial help and therefore, the reasons given by the respondent no.1 while rejecting the application cannot be held to be bad in law. Consequently, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE ssj