By the Court.—This writ petition has been filed by the General Manager, Ordinance Factory, Kanpur against the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (herein after referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) dated 29.5.2015 passed in Original Application No. 1006 of 2011, Amit Verma v. Union of India and others.

2. The Original Application No. 1006 of 2011 was filed by Amit Verma, respondent No. 2 challenging the order dated 25.1.2011 passed by the General Manager, Ordinance Factory, the petitioner before us as well as against the appellate order dated 21.3.2012.

3. Under the orders impugned before the Tribunal, the services of Amit Verma, who was offered compassionate appointment, had been put to an end after recording that his work and performance during the period of probation was not satisfactory.

4. The Tribunal relying upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jagdish Narain v. Union of India and others, 2011(8) ADJ 217 (DB) : 2011(5) ESC 3225 (All)(DB) as well as after following the judgment in the case Sanjai Kumar v. Deputy Director General (NCE), Directorate U.P., Lucknow and others, 2002(3) ESC 454 (All) and in the case of Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (2) ESC 1053, has recorded a finding that so far as the compassionate appointees are concerned, they cannot be treated to be on probation as their appointment has to be regular/permanent. Therefore, before terminating the services of such an compassionate appointee, there has to be an enquiry preceding the punishment. The order of termination has accordingly been set aside.

5. Counsel for the petitioner before us submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Jagdish Narain (Supra) does not lay down the correct law inasmuch as the said judgment has failed to take into consideration that under the provision relating to compassionate appointment, as notified under the Government of India notification dated 9.10.1998, only relaxation in some matters has been provided to such appointees namely :

(a) Exemption from following the recruitment process.

(b) Non applicability of ban, if any, on appointment.

(c) Relaxation in the outer age limit.

(d) Such other relaxation in the matter of typing test etc.

6. It is, therefore, explained that other provision pertaining to direct recruitment would continue to apply. Meaning thereby that a compassionate appointee has necessarily to be placed on probation at the first instance. It is only when he completes the period of probation satisfactorily that he is to be confirmed on the said post. It is also explained that there is no magic in the word ‘regular appointment’. All appointments made as per the rules applicable are regular appointments including compassionate appointment.

7. It is settled law that compassionate appointees have been held to be appointees covered by direct recruitment vis-a-vis the appointees who are promoted. It is explained that the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been examined by the Division Benches in the case of Jagdish Narain (supra) while holding that compassionate appointees need not be appointed on probation.

8. We have examined the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Narain (supra) as well as the statutory provisions as applicable. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows :

“Another question would arise that if an appointment made on compassionate ground is permanent in nature, can his service be terminated treating it to be on probation in terms of the appointment letter. For deciding this question, another question would arise whether the respondents were justified in appointing the petitioner on probation basis on compassionate grounds, and even if it is so, whether this condition can be binding upon the employee/petitioner and that cannot be challenged treating it as it was accepted by the appointee with open eyes without any protest.

As would reveal from the foregoing discussions and th