Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—The unfortunate petitioner, who was appointed on compassionate ground after the death of his father (late Sarwan Lal), appears to be aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21.01.2002, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad in Original Application No. 844 of 1995, by which the petitioner’s Original Application has been dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to this case are that the late Sarwan Lal, who was a permanent employee, working as a Tailor with respondent No. 2, died in harness. After his death on 13.12.1992, the petitioner being the eldest son was appointed on compassionate ground.

3. From the perusal of the appointment letter, it transpires the petitioner’s appointment was on probation for the period of 2 years with the rider that in case petitioner’s work and conduct during the period of probation is found unsatisfactory, his services be terminated. It further transpires that the respondents have found the petitioner’s work unsatisfactory and terminated the services of the petitioner on 22.9.1994.

4. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.9.1994, an appeal was filed on 7.10.1994. When no decision was taken on that, the petitioner has sent a representation/reminder on 8.12.1994 stating therein that the petitioner’s father was poisoned and his dead body was found at the factory gate. After the death of his father, the petitioner’s mother received heavy shock and her health started deteriorating day-by-day, consequently she has fallen ill. There were two unmarried minor sisters also and considering the same, the petitioner was offered an appointment on compassionate ground against a clear vacancy. It is also stated that as the petitioner’s mother was ailing and his family circumstance was very hard pressing, the petitioner off and on got absented himself from duty. His absence from duty was not deliberate and it was under some compelling circumstance and that needed sympathetic consideration, but the respondents without affording an opportunity to explain the reason for absence, has terminated the petitioner’s services. Even on his representation no decision was taken by the appellate authority, thereafter, under the compelling circumstances the petitioner had filed the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

5. The order of termination was challenged mainly on the ground that the appointment offered on compassionate ground is always permanent in nature, therefore, the services of the petitioner could not be terminated except taking recourse of law as contemplated under the Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeals) Rules, 1965 for his alleged misconduct for absence on duty as the reason for termination of the petitioner’s services is unsatisfactory work due to absence from duty for few days in few spells.

6. The Tribunal, without deciding the question as to whether appointment on compassionate basis can be made on probation or on temporary basis, has proceeded to decide the case in terms of the appointment letter and came to the conclusion that during the period of probation the petitioner’s work was closely watched by the respondents and as he got absented himself about 103 days in 36 spells, taking note of that, the Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application of the petitioner by the impugned order and refused to grant any relief.

7. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, almost taking the same ground as it was taken in the Original Application filed before the Tribunal.

8. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition the petitioner has taken the ground that the appointments on compassionate grounds are always permanent in nature and the respondents have arbitrarily treated the petitioner on probation and terminated the petitioner’s services treating him as a probationer. Reply of paragraph 9 of the writ petition has been given in paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit, which is reproduced below :

“8. That the