G. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner herein wants a direction from this Court under writ jurisdiction to foist him on the respondent-Government Company as an employee on compassionate grounds, though the respondent-Company itself is struggling hard for its survival because of excess employment and is undergoing revival operation before the Board of Industrial and financial Reconstruction (in short 'the BIFR' ). ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, his father was working as Lathe turner in the respondent-Company. He died in harness on 23-11-1988. According to the petitioner, he made a representation seeking appointment on compassionate ground and the respondents have issued an endorsement dated 3-6-1991 (Annexure-A), wherein he was intimated that there have been no vacant posts for being afforded to petitioner keeping in view his qualification. Therefore, he cannot be favoured with any appointment. It was also informed that his claim has been included in the waiting list, since already similar 90 such applications are pending and as and when occasion arises his case will also be considered, if any post falls vacant. ( 3 ) THE Divisional Manager (Administration and Industrial Relations) of the respondent-Company has stated in the statement of objections that the company is running under loss and it has been referred to bifr. As per the IDBI report the company is having 1,800 excess employees. Further, in para 6 thereof it has been stated as under. "the main contention of the respondent-Company is that the recruitment has been stopped for several years. Further in order to bring the manpower to the optimum level, the company had introduced voluntary Retirement Scheme and reduced the manpower to the extent of 1,900. When such is the present predicament of the company the fresh recruitment is a distant possibility. The company is passing through severe financial crisis and hence cannot afford to incur additional cost". ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, there is no scheme framed by the respondent-Company to give appointment to the dependents of the deceased employee on compassionate ground. Apart from this the death of the petitioner's father had taken place about 10 years back and therefore now there cannot be any justification for granting any appointment on compassionate ground. ( 5 ) IN the case of Himachal Road Transport Corporation v Dinesh kumar, the Supreme Court has held (at para 10) as under. ". . . . . . ( 5 ) IN the case of Himachal Road Transport Corporation v Dinesh kumar, the Supreme Court has held (at para 10) as under. ". . . . . . IT will be a gross abuse of the powers of a public authority to appoint persons when vacancies are not available. If persons are so appointed and paid salaries, it will be a mere misuse of public funds which is totally unauthorised. Normally, even if the tribunal finds that a person is qualified to be appointed to a post under the kith and kin policy, the Tribunal should only give a direction to the appropriate authority to consider the case of the particular applicant, in the light of the relevant rules and subject to the availability of the post. It is not open to the Tribunal either to direct the appointment of any person to a post or direct the authorities concerned to create a supernumerary post and then appoint a person to such a post. . . . . ". ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .