Writ Petition No. 2467 of 2013. Case: Sunil Kisan Bhojane Vs Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation & Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 2467 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Saurabh S. Pakale i/b. Mr. A.R. Belge, Advs. and For Respondents: Mr. Kunal Bhanage i/b. Mr. L. M. Acharrya, Advs. |
| Judges | Anoop V. Mohta & G. S. Kulkarni, JJ. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 226 |
| Judgement Date | July 15, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
G. S. Kulkarni, J.
-
Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of parties and at their request taken up for final hearing.
-
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner who was appointed on probation by Respondent No.1 on the post of Senior Clerk, has prayed that communication dated 31 January 2013 of the Respondents terminating his services be quashed and set aside and that the Petitioner be reinstated on the post of senior clerk with continuity of service and full back wages.
-
In brief the facts are:By an appointment order dated 1 August 2011 the Respondent No.1 appointed the Petitioner on the post of a senior clerk. Clause 8 of the appointment order provides that the appointment was for a period of one year on probation. Further clause 9 provides that during the probationary period if the work of the Petitioner is found to be unsatisfactory, the appointment would be terminated.
-
The case of the Petitioner is that he accordingly joined services on 11 August 2011 on probation for a period of one year which expired on 10 August 2012. That the Petitioner was not issued any termination order at the expiry of one year. Thus, as per the service Regulations of the Respondents, he becomes a regular and permanent employee of the Respondents on completion of one year of probationary service, that is with effect from 11 August 2012. He was continuously and regularly working and his work was satisfactory as nothing adverse was recorded against him. Having completed one year of satisfactory service on probation, the services of the Petitioner could not have been terminated by the impugned order dated 31 January 2013, without following the mandatory provisions under the Service Rules namely of holding an inquiry. This order of termination was assailed by the Petitioner by filing a departmental appeal /representation dated 4 February 2013, however, no action was taken by the Respondents. The Petitioner has thus filed the present petition.
-
The principal contention as urged on behalf of the Petitioner is that on completion of one year from the date of his appointment, the Petitioner ceased to be a probationary employee and had become a permanent employee of Respondent No.1.
-
In pursuance of notice issued by this Court, the Respondents have appeared and filed a counter of Shri.Sanjay Dhekane, Senior Manager (Legal), opposing the Writ Petition. The case of the Respondents is that the Employees Service Regulations of Respondent no.1 do not specify any rule for automatic confirmation of an employee upon expiry of the probation period as prescribed in the rules or specified in the appointment order. It is contended that in the absence of any such Rule, there is no legal entitlement for the Petitioner to...
To continue reading
Request your trial