- (1.) The reference By a referring order of a Division Bench dated 5 August 2015, the following questions of law have been referred for adjudication by the Full Bench (The questions have been modified in slight detail by the Full Bench to bring out succinctly the nature of the controversy) : 1. Where a person is granted compassionate appointment as a member of the family of a deceased employee of the government who has died in harness in relaxation of the normal rules for recruitment, is it not necessary that even a compassionate appointee be placed on probation in the first instance, in the same manner as any other direct recruit, since the provision pertaining to appointment on probation has not been excluded or exempted in the case of a compassionate appointment; 2. Since an appointment on compassionate grounds on probation is also a regular appointment and a person appointed as such is not offered a temporary appointment, whether there is any violation of law or principle in appointing a person in this category on probation in the first instance; 3. In view of the clear distinction in service jurisprudence between a regular and a temporary appointee, whether the appointment of a person on a compassionate basis on probation is permissible in law.
(2.) A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been instituted by the Senior General Manager of the Ordnance Factory at Kanpur against a judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) dated 29 May 2015. An Original Application was filed before the Tribunal by the second respondent in order to challenge an order dated 25 January 2011 of the General Manager of the Ordnance Factory and an appellate order dated 21 March 2012.
(3.) The services of the second respondent, who was offered compassionate appointment, were put to an end on the ground that his work and performance during the period of probation were not satisfactory. The Tribunal held that a person who is appointed on a compassionate basis cannot be appointed on probation, as the appointment has to be regular/permanent. In arriving at this conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon the following judgments of this Court: (1) Jagdish Narain Vs Union of India, Civil Misc Writ Petition No 4059 of 2003, decided on 14 July 2011 by a Division Bench; (2) Sanjai Kumar Vs Dy Director General (NCE) Directorate, U.P., 2002 3 UPLBEC 2748, decided on 16 July 2002 by a Division Bench; and (3) Ram Chandra Vs State of U.P., 2008 2 ESC 1053 (All) (DB) (LB), decided on 2 January 2008 by a Division Bench.;