CWP No.3423 of 1989 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3423 of 1989 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.09.2011 Priyabrata Chaudhary, Sectional Officer, Public Health, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others. ... Petitioners Versus Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra through its Registrar and another. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate for Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for the respondents. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The case as regards that the first petitioner has been withdrawn and the name stands deleted by an order in CM No.40 of 1991 dated 18.01.1991. 2. The petitioners No.2 to 7 were appointed on probation on various dates commencing from the year 1975 to 1980. The contention of the petitioners was that the period of probation was only one year and on completion of one year, they ought to have been confirmed and to be put on regular scales of pay attached to the respective posts. The Executive Committee of the University had passed resolution on 11.03.1978, amended the relevant Rules relating to terms and conditions of service, and reducing the period of probation, which originally existed for two years to one year. CWP No.3423 of 1989 (O&M) [2] The number of years for which the probation could be extended was however increased upto five years instead of three years, which was originally in place. The amended rule was as follows: “10(i) Amended: Every person appointed permanently to a post under the University, after commencement of these rules, whether by promotion or by direct recruitment shall be on probation on such a post for a period of one year after the satisfactory completion of which the appointing authority by an order in writing confirm him or extend the period of his probation, provided that the total period of probation, including extension shall not exceed 5 years.” 3. This amended rule would lay down that in case of extension of probation beyond a period of one year, there was required to be an order in writing confirming or extending the period of probation. The petitioners claimed that there was no written order extending probation and, therefore, the due date for confirmation must be taken to be only the completion of one year from the respective dates when they were appointed on probation. The grievance, however, was that the University was giving effect to the confirmation from the date when the amended resolution was brought on 09.04.1986. The resolution passed on 09.04.1986 was as follows: “Considered the proposal that six temporary post of Oversears (Sectional Officers) provided in the budget of the construction branch be converted into permanent posts in the scale of Rs.600-1100 so that these six Sectional Officers who have been working since long could be confirmed from the due date against these posts.” CWP No.3423 of 1989 (O&M) [3] 4. The key controversy was the meaning of the expression “due date against these posts”. The University applied it to be effective from the date of resolution dated 09.04.1986 while the petitioners would contend that the due date was one year from the date of completion of the probation from the respective dates of the entry into service. I would uphold the contention of the petitioners and hold that the due date in the context shall mean a date when they were entitled to be regularized as per the amended rules. The fact that they took resolution later ought not to make any difference, I would hold that all the petitioners would be entitled to treat themselves as having been regularized on completion of one year from the date when they were appointed on probation. They would draw all pecuniary benefits attendant on such confirmation by reference to the regular scales of pay that they were entitled to. 5. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. ( K. KANNAN ) SEPTEMBER 05, 2011 JUDGE Rajan