Tarendra Singh Atri Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others - Court Judgment

(WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006)

SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI. J

1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 31.10.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4092/2007 (Tarendra Singh Atri v. State of Chhattisgarh and Two Others). It is ordered as prayed for.

2. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction for payment of increments from the date given to the respondent No.2 i.e. on the basis of his appointment on the post of Food and Civil Supply Inspector and further re- fixation of his payment and grant of consequential benefits including the arrears of pay and interest @ 18% therein.

3. The appellant was appointed as Food and Civil Supply Inspector vide order dated 22.12.1988 (Annexure P-6) for a period of two years on probation. He could not complete his probation within two years. Thereafter, on extended period of probation, he completed probation on 12.01.1992, as informed to him vide order dated 15.06.1993 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, he became entitled two annual increments.

4. On the other hand, the respondent No.4 completed his probation within a stipulated period of two years. The appellant made a representation on 06.04.2002 (Annexure P- 3), which was rejected by the impugned order dated 08.03.2006 (Annexure P-1) on the ground that the probation period of the appellant was extended on not being found satisfactory and thereafter, the grant of annual increment was rightly done in accordance with law.

5. Learned single Judge after having considered the above-stated facts and submission made by the counsel appearing for the parties came to the conclusion that clause 1 of the appointment order itself indicates that the probation period can be extended by the Director, if an employee fails to complete the probation satisfactorily. Thus, it was held that there was no infirmity in the order and the petition was accordingly dismissed.

6. Rule 8 and Rule 12 of the M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 (for short "the Rules, 1961") reads as under:

8. Probation - (1) A person appointed to a service or post by direct recruitment shall ordinarily be placed on probation for such period as may be prescribed.

(2) The appointing authority may, for sufficient reasons, extend the period of probation by a further period not exceeding one year.

(3) A probationer shall undergo such training and pass such departmental examination during the period of his probation as may be prescribed.

(4) The services of a probationer may be terminated during the period of probation if in the opinion of the appointing authority he is not likely to shape into a suitable Government servant.

(5) The services of a probationer who has not passed the departmental examination or who is found unsuitable for the service or post may be terminated at the end of the period of his probation.

(6) On the successful completion of probation and passing of the prescribed departmental examination, if any, the probationer shall, if there is a permanent post available, be confirmed in the service or post to which he has been appointed, either a certificate shall be issued in his favour by the appointing authority to the effect that the probationer would have been confirmed but for the non- availability of the permanent post and that as soon as a permanent post becomes available he will be confirmed.

(7) A probationer, who has neither been confirmed, nor a certificate issued in his favour under sub-rule (6), nor discharged from service under sub-rule (4), shall be deemed to have been appointed as a temporary Government servant with effect form the date of expiry of probation and his conditions of service shall be governed by the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-Permanent Service) Rules, 1960.

7. The Supreme Court in M.P. Chandoria v. State of M.P. and Others held as under:-

"In view of the admitted position that he did not pass the test, the appointing authority considered that his seniority would be counted w.e.f. the date of his passing the test. Rule 12(a)(ii) clearly empowers the appointing authority to assign, in these circumstances, the seniority in lower level than the one assigned by the Public Service Commission. We do not find any illegality committed by the authorities in giving seniority from the date of his passing the test."

8. In State of M.P. v. Ramkindar Gupta and Others, while considering Rule 8 and Rule 12 of the Rules, 1961, the Supreme Court observed as under:

"9. According to sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of Rule 12 in a case like the present where a person had been allowed to continue in service after the period of probation had been completed and he is confirmed subsequently, it is for the appointing authority to decide as to from what date he should be assigned seniority. In the present case the decision of the State Government was that he should be assigned seniority w.e.f. 19-1- 1984. The aforesaid rules have been considered by this Court in the case of M.P. Chandoria v. State of M.P. The principle laid down by this Court in Chandoria case was that if a person does not pass the test then the appointing authority is empowered to assign seniority in a lower level than the one which was assigned by the Public Service Commission. That being so the decision to assign seniority to Respondent No.1 w.e.f. 19-1-1984 is in accordance with rules."

9. In view of the well settled principles of law as aforestated and applying the same to the facts of the case, we do not found any error or infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge.

10. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.