Judgment Augustine George Masih, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed as Sweeper vide letter dated 14.9.2004 (Annexure P-l) on compassionate grounds under the ex gratia Scheme as his father served in the District Courts, Jind as an Additional Sweeper and expired during service. As per the appointment letter, the petitioner was appointed on purely temporary basis and his services could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason whatsoever, without prior notice. It was clearly stipulated therein that he shall remain on probation for a period of two years and in case his work and conduct was not found satisfactory, the period of probation shall be extended for a further period of one year. 2. The petitioner in pursuance of the afore-stated appointment letter joined his duties as such on 16.9.2004. He continued to work as such and since, according to the respondents, his work and conduct had not remained satisfactory, his services were dispensed with vide order dated 14.9.2006 (Annexure P-2) during his probation period of two years in. accordance with the terms as stipulated in the appointment letter. The petitioner thereafter preferred a service appeal under Rule 14 of the Punjab Subordinate Courts Establishment (Recruitment of General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 in the High Court. The said appeal was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 6.2.2008 (Annexure P-6). The relevant extract thereof reads as under: "His work and conduct during the initial period of two years was not satisfactory and a penalty of censure was imposed upon him vide order dated 1.10.2005. The appellant was found absent from duty on 31.5.2006 from 11.00 A.M. to 3.00 P.M. on 1.6.2006 from 9.20 A.M. to 2.00 P.M. the entire day on 28.6.2006, on 10.7.2006 from 9.00 A.M. to 2.00 P.M. on 13-7-2006 from 8.30 A.M. to 2.00 P.M. and the entire days on 14.7.2006 and 15.7.2006. Show Cause Notices were issued to the appellant by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind but the reply to the notices was not submitted. The matter was reported to the District and Sessions Judge, Jind., A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 5.8.2006. The appellant was given hearing by the District and Sessions Judge in person and penalty of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect was imposed. The matter was reported to the District and Sessions Judge, Jind., A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 5.8.2006. The appellant was given hearing by the District and Sessions Judge in person and penalty of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect was imposed. In view of the fact that the work and conduct of the appellant was not found satisfactory, therefore, his services were dispensed with vide order dated 14.9.2006, during the period of probation of two years. The order itself is not stigmatic in so much as it only records that the work and conduct of the appellant remained unsatisfactory and, therefore, his services were no more required and the same were dispensed with. No ground for interference is made out. The appeal is dismissed." 3. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.9 2006 (Annexure P-2) vide which his services have been dispensed with and the order dated 6.2.2008 (Annexure P-6) whereby service appeal preferred by him has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order dated 4.9.2006 (Annexure P-2) is stigmatic arid punitive in nature since the respondents have failed to comply with the procedure of departmental enquire. Since the said procedure has not been followed, the impugned order cannot be sustained and therefore, deserves to be set aside. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The order dated 14.9.2006 (Annexure P-2) dispensing with the services of the petitioner reads as under: Sub:- Dispense with the services of Shri Sunny Kumar, Sweeper. Memo: You were appointed as Sweeper by the order of this office dated 14.9.2004 on compassionate ground under Ex-gratia Scheme in place of your father who had expired during the service. You had joined your services on 16.9.2004 forenoon. On probation for a period of two years extendable by one year. But during the probation period, your work and conduct have remained unsatisfactory. Your services are no longer required and same are hereby dispensed with immediate effect during the period of probation. Sd/- District & Sessions Judge, Jind." 6. A. perusal of the above order would show that the same in no way can be said, to be stigmatic and punitive in nature and therefore, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Sd/- District & Sessions Judge, Jind." 6. A. perusal of the above order would show that the same in no way can be said, to be stigmatic and punitive in nature and therefore, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Further, a perusal of the order of the Appellate Authority dated 6.2.2008 (Annexure P-6 reproduced above) would speak for itself and does not call for any further elaboration. An employee who has been appointed on compassionate ground under the ex-gratia Scheme, should be much more diligent, careful and cpnsiderate while performing the duties of the post on which he has been appointed not on his merits but to save the family from hunger and destitution, out of compassion. In this case, the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy, the equity also is not in his favour apart from the merits which have been discussed in the appellate order dated 6.2.2008 (Annexure P-6). In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this petition and dismiss the same. Petition dismissed