1^"^^ 'y'w'-^'T'KS^S'^E^'^^'^'^^^'^S^^'&' i^S^sTra IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH WRIT APPEAL No. e OF200S"s^- APPELLANT Writ Petitioner Tarendra Singh Atri, Aged about 44 Years, S/o Shri B.P.Singh, Food Inspector, Food Office, Durg Tehsil and Distrfct Durg, Chhattisgarh VERSUS RESPQNDENTS Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, DKS Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Gitesh Mishra Aged about 44 years Food Inspector, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3. Director, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Prdtection Department Raipur, Chhattisgarh INDEX ^" QD HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritAppeal No. 18 OF 2008 AFR Appellant Respondents Tarendra Singh Atri VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Judgment for consideration Sd/- SarishK.Agnihotri Judge Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhe Shyam Sharma o Y Sd/- R-S.S)iarma Judge Post for pronouncement of the judgment on 8 ' day of August, 2011; gd/- J u d ge ^-8-2011 [y i/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritAppeal No. 18 OF 2008 ApRellant Respondents Tarendra Singh Atri VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Others ilttsartfc WRITAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006 D.B. Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri & Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shyam Shafma, JJ. Present: Shri R.S.Marhas, Advocate for the appellant. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. Shri D.KVishwakarma, Advocate on behalf of Shri Anurag Jha, Advocate for the respondent No.2. (Delivered on this ...<S 6ay ofAugust, 2011) Per Satish K.Agnihotri. J 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 31.10.2007 passed by the leamed Single Judge in W.P.No.4092/2007 (Tarendra Singh Atri v. State of Chhattisgarh & Two Others). It is ordered as prayed for. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction for payment of increments from the date given to the respondent No.2 i.e. on the basis of his appointment on the post of Food & Civil Supply Inspector and further re-fixation of his payment and grant of consequential benefits including the arrears of pay and interest @ 18%therein. 3. The appellant was appointed as Food & Civil Supply Inspector vide order dated 22.12.1988 (Annexure P-6) for a period of two years on probation. He coutd not complete his probation within two years. Thereafter, on extended period of probation, he completed probation on 12.01.1992, as informed to him vide order y' ^s^.^: •.T.Si-.:.'lSSSS»»;^.'•••f-rV:.l!S ;^".--^!--^ -^----i —-te. / '-1 jo uoffeuiujexs lefuaui^edap eq{ psssed }ou sey otjM jsuoffeqojd e }o SSOIAIQS siu (s) •{UBAJSS fuaujujaAOQ aiqeyns e o)ui adeqs o) X/sj/// }ou si aif AfUOLffne Buifuiodde SLI) f0 uoiuido sif) ui y uoi}eqojd fo poued sifl Buunp ps)euiiiue} sq Aeui jauoi}Bqojd e fo ssoiAias e^ (p) 'paquossjd aq ABUI se uoifeqojd s/y /o pousd ai]} Buunp uoffeuiLuexa ie}uaui}jedap qons ssed pue BUIUIBJ) yons oBjspun //ei/s jauoifeqo.id y (£) 'jeaA euo Buipesoxe }DU pouad jsift/n/ e Aq uoi}Bqojd ./o pouad sifl pua)xa 'suoseej luaioij^ns joj 'ABLU A)uoq}ne Buifuiodde sy^ (z) •pequosaid aq ABLU se pouad t/ans jof uoifeqojd uo pQOBfd aq Ajueuipjo //eys {uauitinjoaj yiwip Aq fsod JQ aoi/uas e o) pa}uiodde uosjad y (i.) - uoifeqojd 's :jepun se spesj ti.961. 'sejny sift,, yoqs jo^) ],QQ\. 'ss|ny (ssoi/usg P SUOIllpUOQ IBJSUaQ) S90IAJSS IIAIO 'd'l/M 94UO ^i. e|ny 'g 9 S|ny •psssjLusip A|BuipjoooB SBM uoitiisd sqi pue jepjo 94) ui Aiiiujyu.i ou SBM sjaqi }Bqt p|9q SBM }! 'snqi •A|UO)OB^S!IBS uoi}Bqojd sq) a}8|dLUOo 01 sfvs^ aeAo]dLu8 ue ji 'jopsjiQ SL|I Aq pepuepcs sq ueo pousd uojieqojd sq} vsu^ seieoipui j[ssi! jspjo tueujiuiodde eq} y> |. ssne|o }eq} uoisn|ouoo sq} o} siueo ssi}jed aq} joj 6uuesddB issunoo sq) Aq apeuj uoissiLuqns pue spei psieis-eAoqe SL)) psjapisuoo GuiAeq jsye aGpnf a|Buis psujee-i •MB| L|)!M 90UBpJOOOE Ul 9UOp A|}q6u sem tusujsjou! lenuue jo iuej6 sq^ 'jeyesjgq} pue Ajope^siies puno^ Buisq }ou ^ uo pspuapo SBM }ue||edde sqi y> pousd uoiieqojd aqi teq} punojB sqt uo (|.-d sjnxauuy) 900Z'£0'80 psiep JSpJO psuBnduii sq} Aq peiosfej SEM qoiqM '(g-d sjnxsuuv) ZOOZ'WQO uo uoi^ussejdsj e speiu }UB||eddE aLji 'sjesA OMI ys poued peieindiis B uiqijM uoiteqojd siq psis|diuoo yo^ luspuodssj QU^ 'pueq JSL|}O sqi uo •stusLusjoui [enuue OMI ps|(!}us sujeosq si< 'jeyeejsqi •(^-c| sjnxsuuv) E66l.'90'SI. P3»ep z 's"-^^^??^'^ IsttsMiSS, 8. 3 who is found unsuitable for the service or post may be terminated at the end of the period of his probation. (6) On the successful completion of probation and passing of the prescribed departmental examination, if any, the probationer shall, if there is a permanent post available, be confirmed in the service orpost to which he has been appointed, either a certificate shall be issued in his favour by the appointing authority to the effect that the probationer would have been confinned but for the non-availability of the permanent post and that as soon as a permanent posf becomes available he will be confinned. (7) A probationer, who has neither been confirmed, nor a certificate issued in his favour under sub-rule (6), nor discharged from service under sub-rule (4), shall be deemed to have ibeen appointed as a temporary Govemment servant with effect form the date of expiry of probation and his conditions of service shall be govemed by the Madhya Pradesh Govemment Servants (Temporary and Quasi-Permanent Sen/ice) Rules, 1960. The Supreme Court in M.P. Chandona v. State of M.P. & Others held as under:- "In view of the admitted position that he did not pass the test, the appointing authority considered that his seniority would be counted w.e.f. the date of his passing the test. Rule 12(a)(ii) clearly empowers the appointing authority to assign, in these circumstances, the seniority in lower level than the one assigned by the Public Service Commission. We do not find any illegality committed by the authorities in giving seniority from the date of his passing thetest." In Stete ofM.P. v. Ramkindar Gupta & Others , while considering Rule 8 & Rule 12 of the Rules, 1961, the Supreme Court observed as under: "9. According to sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of Ru/e 12 in a case like the present where a person had been allowed to continue in service after the period of probation had been compteted and he fe confinned subsequently, it /s for the appointing authority to decide as to ' (1996)11 SCC173 2 (2000) 10SCC77 iilttja D;t»1tFnin& ^SESS^^^~y ^^~^:-—~-—St^^S^^sS 9. 10. from what date he should be assigned seniority. In the present case the decision of the State Govemment was that he should be assigned senion'ty w.e.f. 19-1-1984. The aforesaid rules have been considered by this Court in the case of M.P. Chandoria v. State of M.P. The phnciple laid down by this Court in Chandon'a case was that if a person does not pass the test then the appointing authority is empowered to assign seniority in a lower level than the one which was assigned by the Public Service Commission. That being so the decision to assign seniority to Respondent No.1 w.e.f. 19-1-1984 is in awor^ance with rules." In view of the well settled principles of law as aforestated and applying the same to the facts of the case, we do not found any error or infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotn Judge ashok Sd/- R-S.Sharma Judge hBkl ^ttlffitn-" sesisa"