IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 861 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 26/06/2008 in WP NO : 10967 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The divisional Office, Life Insurance Corporation of india, rep. by its Senior Divisional Manager, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 The Zonal Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India, rep.by its Zonal Manager, Hyderbad. 3 The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, " Yogaskema", Mumbai, Rep. by its managing Director. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND N.S.Hari Prakash s/o. Late N.L.Muralidhara Rao R/o. Flat No. 201, Sai Durga Towers, Vuyyuru, Krishna district. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellants: MR.M.V.SURESH Counsel for the Respondent: MR.C.A.R.SESHAGIRI RAO The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WA {TRK} Judgment: (Per Shri Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J) 1. This appeal is preferred by the respondents in the writ petition i.e., Life Insurance Corporation of India (for brevity, ‘LIC’) and its oﬃcials, aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.6.2008 passed in WPMP No.14280 of 2008 in Writ Petition No.10967 of 2008. 2. The employee ﬁled Writ Petition No.10967 of 2008 challenging his reversion from the post of Branch Manager to the post of Assistant Branch Manager under the impugned order of the LIC dated 09.5.2008. 3. The case of the employee-writ petitioner is that he was promoted as Assistant Branch Manager on 26.11.1998 and was further promoted as Manager vide proceedings dated 05.5.2006 and assumed charge on 11.5.2006. Under Regulation 16 of the LIC of India (Staﬀ) Regulations, 1960 (for brevity, ‘the Regulations’), the said post of Branch Manager being Class-I, an employee promoted to the Class- I category will be treated as on probation, for a period of one year and that the employee has already completed the one year period on 10.5.2007. The employee, therefore, contended that he cannot be reverted by the impugned order dated 09.5.2008 when he had already been deemed to have conﬁrmed in the said post of Branch Manager on completion of one year of probation by 10.5.2007 itself. 4. The LIC ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit, inter alia, contending that the employee’s probation, no doubt, was initially for one year, but under the very same Regulation 16 (1) of the Regulations, it is open for the competent authority to extend the probation. It is speciﬁcally averred in the counter-aﬃdavit that his probation was extended by one year in terms of Regulation 16 (1) of the Regulations, in order to give him a reasonable opportunity to mend his way and to show improvement in his conduct. 5. The question that arose for consideration before the learned Single Judge was whether a prima facie case is made out by the petitioner to show that his probation is deemed to have been successfully completed after end of one year and whether he is deemed to have been conﬁrmed in the post of Branch Manager? 6. Under the impugned order in this appeal, the learned Single Judge found no orders on record showing any extension of probation and consequently, came to the prima facie conclusion that once the period of probation is completed by employee, it is not open for the LIC to revert the petitioner to the lower post without conducting enquiry. The learned Single Judge, therefore, being satisﬁed with the prima facie case in favour of the employee, suspended the impugned order and directed that the petitioner shall be continued as Branch Manager pending disposal of the writ petition. Aggrieved by this order, the present writ appeal is filed by LIC. 7. We have heard the learned counsel on either of the parties. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-LIC has strenuously contended that under Regulation 16 (1) and 16 (2) of the Regulations, which are extracted hereunder, the initial one year period of probation is extendable by one more year and Regulation 16 (2) further provides that an employee on probation shall be liable to be reverted without notice at any time. The learned counsel also relied upon various decisions, which are cited as follows: “S. SUKHBANS SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB[1], G.S. RAMA SWAMY AND OTHERS v. THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, BANGALORE[2], THE STATE OF PUNJAB v. DHARAM SINGH [3], KEDAR NATH BAHL v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS[4], K.A. BAROT v. STATE OF GUJARAT [5], MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RAIPUR v. ASHOK KUMAR MISRA[6], SATYA NARAYAN ATHYA v. HIGH COURT OF M.P. AND ANOTHER [7], DIRECTOR, MINISTRY OF COAL AND OTHERS v. MIMLENDU KUMAR[8], CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER[9], STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS v. RAJENDRA KUMAR SINGH AND ANOTHER[10], LAXMI NARAIN SHARMA (DEAD) BY LRS. v. GOVT. OF U.P. AND OTHERS [11], DAYARAM DAYAL v. STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER [12], WASIM BEG v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [13], DR. AMRITLAL DHARSHIBHAI JHANKHARIA v. STAE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER[14] and CHANDRA PRAKASH SHAHI v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS[15]”. “Regulation No.16 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staﬀ) Regulations, 1960: 16 (1): An Employee promoted to a higher post shall be treated as on probation in the Higher Post for a period of one year in the case of promotion to posts belonging to Class-I and II and 6 months in other cases. Provided, however, that the competent authority may in its discretion extend the period of probation, but in no case shall the total period of probation exceed – a. In the case of promotions to posts belonging to Classes I & II : 2 years. b. In other cases : 1 year 16(2): An employee on probation shall be liable to be reverted without notice at any time. 16(3): During the period of probation, an employee retains his lien on his lower post and the period shall count as permanent service for all purposes.” 9. Per contra, ﬁrstly, learned counsel for the employee – respondent contended that in the absence of any order of extension of probation on record, it cannot be presumed that the probation was extended by one more year. Secondly, learned counsel for the employee – respondent contended that the impugned order of reversion dated 09.5.2008 was in fact, received by the employee only on 14.5.2008 and even if it is assumed that the probation was extended by one more year, the said period also would expire by 10.5.2008, as such, he contended that the order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference. 10. Upon hearing the learned advocates and looking to the facts of the case, prima facie, we are of the view that the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper. For the reasons stated by the learned Single Judge, we are convinced that the interim order whereby the respondent – employee has been ordered to be continued in service is just and fair. In our opinion, even the balance of convenience is in favour of the respondent – employee in the instant case. 11. We need not go into the details at this stage especially when the hearing of the main petition is still pending before the learned Single Judge. Coming to some ﬁnal conclusion on the merits of the case might adversely aﬀect one of the parties and, therefore, we do not think it proper to give elaborate reasons. However, looking to the facts of the case, we are of the view that the writ petition should be notiﬁed for ﬁnal hearing at an early date especially when the counter-affidavit has already been filed in the petition. 12. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. 13. Registry is directed to notify Writ Petition No.10967 of 2008 for ﬁnal hearing immediately after Dassera Vacation of 2008. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ August 28, 2008. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. kvr/svs [1] AIR 1962 SC 1711 [2] AIR 1966 SC 175 [3] AIR 1968 SC 1210 [4] AIR 1972 SC 873 [5] 1990 (Supp.) SCC 287 [6] (1991) 3 SCC 325 [7] (1996) 1 SCC 560 [8] (1997) 2 SCC 217 [9] (1997) 7 SCC 550 [10] (1997) 10 SCC 682 [11] (1997) 10 SCC 747 [12] AIR 1997 SC 3269 [13] (1998) 3 SCC 321 [14] (1998) 8 SCC 767 [15] (2000) 5 SCC 152