- (1.) This is defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15.5.1992 in Civil Appeal No. 67 of 1985 arising out of Original Suit No. 721 of 1982 (Chandra Swaroop Srivastava v. Union of India and others). The plaintiff respondent instituted Original Suit No. 721 of 1982 for declaration that he became a regular employee of the defendant department and further relief sought was for reinstatement and payment of back wages. The plaintiffs case was that the plaintiff was appointed on the post of Labour on 3.5.1977 for a period of six months in the defendant department. Before the probation period expired on 2.5.1978 by the order dated 1.5.1978 it was extended for a period of six months i.e. 1.11.1978. However, on 23.9.1978 the petitioner was terminated from services during the extended period of probation. The plaintiff contended that the termination order is illegal and is against the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The suit was instituted after giving notice under Section 80 C.P.C. The defendant contested the suit and accepted the fact of appointment and extension of probation period for six months by order dated 1.5.1978. However, it was contended that as work of the petitioner was not satisfactory so the period of six months was extended in order to give him an opportunity to improve his working. During the period of probation, it was found that the petitioner has failed to show any improvement and as such by the order dated 23.9.1978, his services were terminated in accordance with law. The petitioner is not entitled for any salary after 23.9.1978. The termination order does not suffer from any illegality and requires no interference. The trial Court on the basis of pleadings framed various issues. Relevant issues framed are given as under: 1. Whether the plaintiffs services were illegally terminated? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any payment of back wages? 6. Whether the plaintiff is temporary regular worker? If yes, its effect? Issue No. 1, 4 and 6, were taken up together and decided by the trial Court against the plaintiff. It was held that services of plaintiff were terminated during the period of probation and he was not permanent employee as alleged by him. Since services were terminated in accordance with the legal provision, he is not entitled for any salary. The suit was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 31.10.1984.
(2.) Aggrieved, the plaintiff went up in appeal and initially First Appeal was filed before this Court. The appeal was transferred by the High Court to the District Judge on the ground of valuation. The lower appellate Court heard the appeal on merits and decreed the suit by judgment and order dated 15.5.1992 declaring the termination of the petitioner illegal and the decree was passed to reinstate him with all consequential benefits from the date of termination.
(3.) Present second appeal was admitted by the order dated 25.8.1992 and while admitting the appeal following substantial question of law was framed: "Whether in view of specific condition in the appointment letter that the probation period would not ordinarily be extended beyond one year and in the face of an express order extending the probation period beyond one year which was passed before the expiry of one year there could be an inference of automatic confirmation?";