Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) THE writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by order dated 24.11.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 29602 of 2002, has preferred this appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the husband of the writ petitioner-appellant Ram Gopal was a Fitter in the U.P. Power Corporation. He died while in service. THE appellant earlier filed writ petition no. 17609 of 2002 inter alia praying for getting appointment on compassionate ground. THE learned Single Judge by order dated 29.4.2002 directed the Executive Engineer, Electricity Generation Division II, Aligarh to consider the inter se claim of the appellant and son from the first wife of the deceased Ram Gopal namely Bhanu Pratap Singh for appointment on compassionate ground. In the light of the aforesaid order, the claim of the appellant as also the deceased employee's son Bhanu Pratap Singh-respondent no. 4 was considered and it was found that it is the respondent no. 4 who deserves to be appointed on compassionate ground. Challenge to the aforesaid order had failed before the learned Single Judge on the ground that the appellant had already received Rs. one lac as service dues and further she was to receive Rs. two and half lacs as balance of service dues. THE learned Single Judge also took into consideration that she is getting a pension of Rs.2500/- per month and in the circumstances, the exercise of the discretion by the Executive Engineer does not suffer from any error calling for interference in the writ petition. Mr. S.K. Srivastava appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that appointment on compassionate ground is governed by the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board Dying in Harness Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules'). He draws our attention to Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules and submits that it contemplates taking into consideration the well being of the widow and in the light thereof, respondents ought to have preferred appellant in preference to the son. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Srivastava. Rule 7 aforesaid gives discretion to the authority in choosing a person for appointment on compassionate ground. It is not the appellant's case that the son of the deceased is not entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. According to her, she ought to have been preferred in place of the son. THE authority as also the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the dues paid to the widow as also the family pension she is receiving. Further, it has been found that the appellant is illiterate. In the face of it, we are of the opinion that the discretion exercised by the authority as also by this Court do not suffer from any error. In fact, the authority as also this Court has balanced equity, which is permissible in law. We are of the opinion that the consideration of the matter by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error calling for interference in this appeal. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal. THE appeal is dismissed accordingly.;