A compassionate appointment should be treated as permanent, and termination without due process is not valid.

( 1 ) THIS Special Appeal is directed against Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 11. 2. 2002 allowing the writ petition, where the learned Single Judge held that the appointment of writ petitioner having been made on compassionate ground, the same cannot be treated to be a temporary appointment and as such the order dated 5. 12. 1996 terminating his services under u. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules of 1975 is set aside.

( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that before passing the termination order, no show cause notice was served on the petitioner nor the petitioner was given any opportunity to explain his misconduct, if any, irregularity and unauthorised absence. It is true that if the appointment is confirmed, there cannot be simplicitor termination. On the allegation against the petitioner which has been noted by learned Single Judge in his Judgment, it was open for the respondents to have held an enquiry against the petitioner. The learned Single Judge for his decision has placed reliance on a division Bench Judgment of this Court in 1999 (2) AWC 976, Ravi Karan Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors. . The Division Bench in the aforesaid case has held that an appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules has to be treated as permanent appointment otherwise if such appointment is treated to be a temporary appointment, then it will be followed that soon after appointment, the services can be permanent and this will nullify the very purpose of Dying in Harness Rules.

( 3 ) WE are of the opinion that the Judgment of learned Single Judge which is based on Division bench decision in Ravi Karan Singhs case needs no interference in this appeal. However, it will be open to the appellants, if so advised, to proceed in accordance with law. The petitioner respondent No. 1 shall be reinstated in service forthwith and shall be entitled to pay including all consequential benefits as already directed by the learned Single Judge.

( 4 ) ACCORDINGLY, we are of the view that there is no merit in this special appeal, Special appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

.