Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Submission has been made by the counsel for the petitioners that 24 months is the maximum extended period of probation as per the terms and conditions of the appointment letter Patna High Court CWJC No.10046 of 2011 dt.02-04-2019 it cannot be extended beyond 24 months in that event the employee continued to discharge the duty after 24 months will be treated to have been automatically confirmed in the service and for all purposes, he will be treated to a permanent employee of the LIC of India and there was/is no need to issue any letter of confirmation after the lapse of 24 months as it will be automatic confirmation in the service. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the following judgments reported in AIR 1968 SC 1210 ( State of Punjab Vs. Dharam Singh), AIR 1988 SC 286 (M.K. Agarwal Vs. Gurgaon Gramin Bank and Ors.), AIR 1986 SC 1844 (Om Prakash Maurya Vs. U.P. Co-Operative Sugar Factories Federation, Lucknow and Ors.) and AIR 1992 SC 947 (P.C. Bumotra Vs. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, New India Assurance Co.Ltd. And another), second point has been raised that the order of termination has been effected from retrospective date, is per se illegal, there cannot be any termination with the retrospective effect inasmuch as the tenor of the letter of termination reflects the stigma. If the stigma has been attached, it requires show cause, inquiry and only then, the order of termination with stigma can be effected, whereas the counsel for the LIC of India has submitted that there cannot be any automatic confirmation. It depends on the performance of probationer during Patna High Court CWJC No.10046 of 2011 dt.02-04-2019 the period of probation and if it is found that he has successfully completed the probation period and by a specific order, the confirmation is to be given. Mere lapse of 24 months will not ipso facto treated to have been confirmed. The order of confirmation can be effected on consideration of different facets. As per the terms and conditions of the appointment letter, he was to secure the quantity of business as mentioned in the appointment letter, in the event of failure, his service would not be confirmed, the Management after examination of performance would take decision in the matter of confirmation of service. It has further been submitted that as there is no specific provision or the condition in the appointment letter of an automatic confirmation, hence, mere lapse of 24 months will not be treated to have been confirmed automatically. Further submission is that after the probation of 24 months, his performance was assessed, only thereafter a decision was taken with respect to the confirmation, in the case of the petitioner, the performance of the work was not up- to mark it has been found that he failed to secure business mentioned in the letter of appointment even though period has spilled over of 24 months will not be treated the petitioner has been confirmed. He has placed reliance on the different clauses mentioned in the appointment letter, as such, clause 2, clause 11 Patna High Court CWJC No.10046 of 2011 dt.02-04-2019 where the confirmation and increment has been dealt with and also the clause 13 and in support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment reported in (2001) 7 SCC 161 (High Court of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Satya Narayan Jhavar). He has further submitted that the letter which has been served dealing with the disengagement of the petitioner, cannot be said, in any manner, to be stigmatic order as the order itself shows that the petitioner has failed to fulfill the criteria laid down in the appointment letter will not be treated to be a blemished order of termination or to be treated as a stigmatic. The points which have been taken by the petitioner, is not sustainable as the Authority has found that the petitioner has failed to secure the minimum quantify of business which was required to be achieved by him.

Patna High Court CWJC No.10046 of 2011 dt.02-04-2019 Having heard the rival contention, the first issue is to be decided that if the petitioner has worked beyond the second stint of the probation period, i.e. beyond 24 months, will be treated to have been confirmed in service or whether it requires a letter of confirmation from the LIC of India. If the Court arrives to a finding that if the person is allowed to work beyond 24 months would lead to automatic confirmation, in such circumstance, the termination may be held to be illegal, but if the Court arrives to conclusion that even after completion of 24 months, if the probationer somehow and other continued to work beyond that maximum period, later on terminated from service as it requires that there should be specific order of confirmation, in that circumstances, the Court will have to examine as to whether order of termination is stigmatic as well as the Authority has jurisdiction to pass an order giving retrospective effect.

17. In Kedar Nath Bahl v. State of Punjab [(1974) 3 SCC 21] , this Court clearly laid down the proposition of law that where a person is appointed as a probationer in any post and a period of probation is specified, it does not follow that at the end of the said specified period of probation he obtains confirmation automatically even if no order is passed on that behalf. It was also held in that decision that unless the terms of appointment clearly indicate that confirmation would automatically follow at the end of the specified period or that there is a specific service rule to that effect, the expiration of the probationary period does not necessarily lead to confirmation. This Court went on to hold that at Patna High Court CWJC No.10046 of 2011 dt.02-04-2019 the end of the period of probation an order confirming the officer is required to be passed and if no such order is passed and if he is not reverted to his substantive post, the result merely is that he continues in his post as a probationer".

And whereafter again the issue came for consideration in the case of Head Master, Lawrence School, Lovedale Vs. Jayanthi Raghu and Anr. [(2012) 4 SCC 793]. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered all the previous judgments and after analyzing the previous judgments, in paragraph 38, it has been held that there is no provision of automatic confirmation in the rules, the wider interpretation cannot be placed on the Rule to infer that the probationer gets the status of a deemed confirmed employee after expiry of three years of probationary period as that would defeat the basic purpose and intent of the Rule which clearly postulates "if confirmed". A confirmation, as is demonstrable from the language employed in the Rule, does not occur with efflux of time as is hedged by a condition, an affirmative or positive act is required by the employer. It will be relevant to quote paragraphs 38 & 39 of the said judgment :