- (1.) The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner-respondent, R.P. Garg was, vide letter dated 21.4.1986, appointed as an Electrician Grade-III with the appellant-Indian Oil Corporation. He joined on the said post on 25.9.1986. The initial appointment of the respondent, as per the terms of the appointment letter, was on probation for a period of six months, which could be extended or reduced depending on the work of the employee being found satisfactory during the probationary period. It was also mentioned in the appointment letter that the services will not be regarded as confirmed unless a letter of confirmation to the effect was issued to the employee and the annual increments were to be granted on the specific recommendation of the Departmental Head for good work and conduct of the individual during the period concerned. The respondent-writ petitioner continued in service till 26.4.1989, when the termination order was issued to him stating that no confirmation letter had yet been issued and hence his services could not be regarded as confirmed; and that his services were no longer required by the Corporation, and hence terminated with immediate effect. Challenging the said order, the respondent-writ petitioner (employee) filed a writ petition no. 8502 of 1989, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge by judgement and order dated 1.12.2006, whereby the termination order dated 26.4.1989 was quashed and the Corporation was given liberty to pass fresh orders, if it so desires, in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the Writ Court, this appeal has been filed by the appellant-Corporation.
(2.) We have heard Sri Vijay Ratan Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri Vivek Ratan Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation as well as Sri Gopal Misra, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner and have perused the record.
(3.) The submission of Sri Vijay Ratan Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation is that in terms of the appointment letter dated 21.4.1986, the writ petitioner-employee was to continue on probation until the letter of confirmation was issued by the Corporation. It is contended that even though the initial period of probation was only six months from the date of reporting on duty, but since the same could be extended or reduced (depending on the satisfactory working of the writ petitioner during the period of probation), even in the absence of period of probation having been contended, since the letter of confirmation had not been issued, the writ petitioner-employee would be deemed to be on probation. It is thus contended that the termination simplicitor by order dated 26.4.1989 was rightly passed as the writ petitioner was on probation, and the same was without any stigma.;