IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.942 of 2008 1. THE CHIEF General Manager, Telecomunication, Bihar Circle, Patna-1 2. The General Manager, Telecommunication, Darbhanga 3. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.MTO Darbhanga, through its Chief General Manager, ASC©, Patna.— Appellants. Versus 1. ASHOK KUMAR SAH son of late Baso Sah, R/O Mohalla Havtolia (Rai Saheb Pokhar),P.O.Laheriasarai, Distt- Darbhanga 2. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Telecommunication, Technology Bhawan, New Delhi.— Respondents. ----------- For the appellants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha For respondent no.2 : Mr. Shiv Kumar ----- 4. 28.2.2009. Respondents-Appellants, aggrieved by the order dated 3.9.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C.No.13825 of 2005, have preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Short facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the father of the writ petitioner-respondent no.1 was a Class IV employee of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, hereinafter referred to as ’BSNL’. He died on 7.5.1999. On his death, writ petitioner- respondent no.1 filed application for appointment on compassionate ground. By order dated 28.2.2002, his application was rejected on the ground that “family does not seem to be living in indigent condition”. Respondent No.1 presented the writ application before this Court on 2 10.2.2003 but the Stamp Reporter objected to its maintainability and before it could be formally filed and registered, Respondent No.1 withdrew the writ application. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 filed application before the Central Administrative Tribunal on 25.2.2003 and when pointed out that the application is not maintainable before the Tribunal, he withdrew the same on 11.11.2004 and thereafter, presented the writ petition on 27.9.2005 before this Court challenging the aforesaid order. The learned single Judge, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that the appellants were not right in holding that the “family does not seem to live in indigent condition”. In this connection, the observation of the learned Single Judge reads as follows: “It does not appear that the authorities have made a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family and the family pension and terminal benefits received by the widow cannot be a ground for rejection of the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground considering that the same was insufficient to meet the needs of the several dependants of the deceased employee. Even the said guidelines regarding compassionate appointment clearly states that an application for compassionate appointment should not be rejected merely 3 on the ground that the family of the deceased employee has received benefits of the various welfare schemes. It appears that the authorities have acted contrary to the said guidelines.” As regard delay, the learned Single Judge has observed as follows: “xxx The facts of the present case do not show any delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. Immediately after the rejection of his application for compassionate appointment, the petitioner had approached, under wrong legal advice, the Central Administrative Tribunal, which by its order dated 11.11.2004 dismissed the petition as withdrawn since the same was found not maintainable before the Tribunal with a liberty to approach the appropriate forum. Thereafter the writ application has been filed in the year 2005.” Mr. Rakesh Kumar, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the case of Respondent No.1 was considered by High Power committee and the same having found that the family does not seem living in indigent condition, the learned Single Judge ought not to have quashed the order rejecting the prayer for appointment on compassionate ground and given direction for appointment. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Kumar. The learned single Judge, on consideration of the materials on 4 record, came to the conclusion that the opinion of the High Power Committee, which had led to rejection of the claim for appointment on compassionate ground, is erroneous. As regards the delay, the learned Single Judge has also observed that on account of wrong legal advice, the case was pursued before the Tribunal. We are of the opinion that the consideration of the matter by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error and hence, does not call for interference in this appeal Appeal stands dismissed. ahk (C. K. Prasad,ACJ) (Dharnidhar Jha)