Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:15249 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.04.03 13:24:44 +0530 WPS No. 5596 of 2023 1 - Aasif Raja Khan S/o. Ayyub Khan Aged About 32 Years Working As Lab Technician At Late Thakur Maharaj Singh Government College, Thankhamariya, Block Saja, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ravindra Kumbhakar, S/o. Sanat Kumbhakar, Aged About 32 Years Working As Lab Technician At Acharya Pant Shri Grindh Muni Naam Saheb Government Pg College, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Deepak Kumar Gupta, S/o. Late Ramkrishna Gupta, Aged About 40 Years Working As Lab Technician At Government Naveen College, Pandatarai, Block- Pandariya, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Leeladhar Sahu S/o. Santram Sahu, Aged About 38 Years Working As Lab Technician At Maharshi Vedvyas Government College, Bhakhara, Block Bhakhara, District - Dhmatari, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ku. Payal Sonwani, D/o. Mayaram Sonwani, Aged About 33 Years Working
Legal Reasoning
As Lab Technician At Government Babu Chhote Lal Shrivastava Pg College, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Swechchha Singh Parihar, W/o. Shri Raghuraj Singh Parihar, Aged About 39 Years Working As Lab Technician At Acharya Pant Shri Grindh Muni Naam Saheb Government Pg College, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Ku. Sita Natam, D/o. Sundar Singh Netam, Aged About 35 Years Working As Lab Technician At Government Sukhram Nage College, Nagri Sihava, Block - Nagri, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 2 8 - Dinesh Kumar Sahu, S/o. Basdev Sahu, Aged About 38 Years Working As Lab Technician At Government Eklavya College, Dondilohara, Block - Dondilohara, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. 9 - Sunil Kumar Banjara S/o. T.R. Banjara, Aged About 44 Years Working As Lab Technician At Indira Gandhi Government College, Pandariya, Block - Pandariya, , District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 10 - Roshan Sahu, S/o. Late Mohan Lal Sahu, Aged About 43 Years Working As Lab Technician At Government College, Bodla, Block - Bodla, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 11 - Smt. Anju Kanwar W/o Arjun Singh Kanwar Aged About 36 Years Working As Lab Technician At Govt. Dr. Indrajeet Singh College, Akaltara, Block Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa 12 - Umesh Kumar Bhagat S/o Gurumal Bhagat Aged About 33 Years Working As Lab Technician At Arun Pratap Singh Deo Govt. College, Shankargarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 13 - Rohit Paikara S/o Jagsayram Paikara Aged About 36 Years Working As Lab Technician At Govt. College, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 14 - Kunal Kumar Soni S/o Kumaprashad Soni Aged About 35 Years Working As Lab Technician At Govt. College, Balrampur District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 15 - Smt. Sushma Sahu D/o Late Nilkanth Sahu Aged About 42 Years Working As Lab Technician At Arun Pratap Singh Deo Govt. College, Shankargarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 16 - Mahesh Kumar Netam S/o Johrit Ram Netam Aged About 43 Years Working As Lab Technician At Govt. Indru Kenwat Girls College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) 17 - Praveen Kumar Thakur S/o Mahendra Singh Thakur Aged About 33 Years Working As Lab Technician At Govt. Maharshi Valmiky College, Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (C.G.) 18 - Jeevrakhan Kumar Jain S/o Kartik Ram Jain Aged About 39 Years Working As Lab Technician At Govt. Shaheed Gaind Singh College, Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) 3 19 - Smt. Jyoti Keshri W/o Sachin Gupta Aged About 43 Years Working As Lab Technician At Sant Guru Ghasidas Govt. P.G. College, Kurud, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 20 - Smt. Vandana Kujur D/o Manohar Tigga Aged About 34 Years Working As Lab Technician At Govt. Girls P.G. College, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 21 - Smt. Savita Gilhare W/o Umashankar Gilhare Aged About 37 Years Working As Lab Technician At Govt. Naveen College, Aamdi, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 22 - Smt. Roshnee Thakur W/o Adeetya Kumar Thakur Aged About 35 Years Working As Lab Technician At Bhanupratap Dev Govt. P.G. College, Kanker, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 23 - Umesh Kumar Bhagat S/o Ram Charan Ram Aged About 40 Years Working As Lab Technician At Rajeev Gandhi Govt. P.G. College, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 24 - Smt. Suman Bharti S/o Bramhadev Ram Aged About 37 Years Working As Lab Technician At Rajeev Gandhi Govt. P.G. College, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantalaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner Higher Education Department, Block C-3, 2nd And 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - State Anti Corruption Bureau/ Economic Offences Wing Through The Additional Director Of Police, G.E. Road, In Front Of Jay Jawan Petrol Pump, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) 4 (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) For State : Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate : Mr. Risabh Bisen, PL (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 01/04/2025 1. The Petitioners have filed this petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to regularize/ confirm the services of the petitioners from the date of their completion of probation period. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide the benefit of increment and other consequential benefits and the benefit arrears thereof from the date of completion of probation period to till date. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to set-aside the letter dated 12.06.2023 (Annexure P/7), 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were appointed as Lab Technician by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 01/02/2013, on probation for a period of two years, they successfully completed the probation period, but their services have not been confirmed by the respondent authorities till date, and they are still deemed to be on probation. He would contended that the Lab Attendants, who were appointed in the year 2013 have already been confirmed by the department after completion of their probation period. The action on the part of the respondents’ authorities is discriminatory 5 and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the constitution of India, as well as provisions of Rule 8 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, which specify that the period of probation cannot be extended for a period not exceeding one year. He would pray that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to take a decision with regard to confirmation of services of the petitioners. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dayaram Dayal v. State of M.P. and another, (1997) 7 SCC 443 (para-13). 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and submits that the Economic Offence Wing (EOW), State of Chhattisgarh has registered a case pertaining to the recruitment of Lab Technicians for the year 2012-13. He would further submit that the investigation is going on. He would also submit that pertaining to the recruitment of Lab Technicians for the year 2012-13, a recommendation has been sent by the Under Secretary, State Government to the Additional Director General of Police to investigate the matter and submit a report, thus, the decision taken by the authorities is not discriminatory. He also contends that on account of the pendency of the investigation, the respondent authorities have not taken a decision with regard to the confirmation of the services of the petitioners after completion of their probation period. He would assure that appropriate decision(s) shall be taken by the respondent authorities with regard to the 6 confirmation of the petitioners, after the conclusion of the investigation. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. From a perusal of the documents available on the record, it is apparent that an advertisement was issued for the recruitment of Lab Technicians and Lab Attendants in the year 2012-13. The petitioners were appointed as Lab Technicians on a probation period of two years, which came to an end in the year 2015. Despite the successful completion of their probation period, no decision has been taken by the respondent authorities regarding their confirmation of services. 6. On the one hand, the Lab Attendants, who were also appointed pursuant to the same recruitment process, had their services confirmed vide order dated 15/05/2015, but on the other hand, the State counsel contended that since the investigation is going on pertaining to the recruitment year 2012-13, no decision has been taken regarding confirmation of the petitioners, but no document has been placed on record to demonstrate that such an investigation is going on; further, there is no document to show that any criminal case(s) is/are pending against the petitioners or the State authorities, therefore, the stand taken by the State is flimsy & fancy. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dayaram Dayal (supra), while dealing with a similar issue in para 13 held as under:- "13. It is, therefore, clear that the present case is one where the Rule has prescribed an initial period of probation and then for the extension of probation subject to a maximum, and therefore the 7 case squarely falls within the second line of cases, namely, State of Punjab vs Dharam Singh (AIR 1968 SC 1210) case and the provision for a maximum is an indication of an intention not to treat the officer as being under probation after the expiry of the maximum period of probation. It is also significant that in the case before us the effect of the rule fixing a maximum period of probation is not whittled down by any other provision in the rules such as the one contained in Samsher Singh's case or in Municipal Corporation, Raipur vs Ashok Kumar Misra [1991 (3) SCC 325] case. Though a plea was raised that termination of service could be effected by serving one month's notice or paying salary in lieu thereof, there is no such provision in the order of appointment nor was any rule relied upon for supporting such a contention. 8. In the aforesaid cited judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when rules specify an initial probation period with a maximum extension, an employee cannot be kept on probation by the employer beyond the prescribed maximum period. 9. It is a well-established principle of law that government employees cannot be kept on probation for an indefinite period. Further, Rule 8(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, clearly states that the probation period cannot be extended for more than one year without assigning sufficient reason. 10. In the present case, the respondent authorities have not issued specific order with regard to the extension of probation period of the petitioners and at the same time, no decision has been taken for the completion of probation period; thus, the action of the respondents appears to be discriminatory and arbitrary. 11. Taking into consideration the above stated facts, and relying on the 8 judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dayaram Dayal (supra), this Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioners are entitled to get their services confirmed. 12. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to take an appropriate decision with regard to the confirmation of services of the petitioners on he post of Lab Technician preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As the services of the Lab Attendants, who were appointed pursuant to the same advertisement, were confirmed with effect from 15/05/2015, therefore, the petitioners shall be entitled to similar relief from that date. The petitioners shall also be entitled to get all consequential benefits from 15/05/2015. 13. With the aforesaid observation and direction, these writ petitions are
Decision
hereby disposed of. Rahul Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE