(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3687 OF 1997 Mukund s/o. Shahaji Magade, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. at present, Behind Old Karad Naka, Gatade Plot, Pandharpur, District : Solapur. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The Union of India. 2. Chairman cum Managing Director, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., New India Assurance Building, 87, M.G. Road, Fort, Bombay - 23. 3. Regional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Sharda Centre, Behind Nal Stop, Karve Road, Pune. 4. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Hutatma Smriti Mandir Complex, Park Chowk, Solapur. (2) 5. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Shivaji Chowk, Main Road, Osmanabad. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. M.K. Deshpande, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for respondent no.1. Mr. D.S. Kulkarni, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.L. Kulkarni, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 to 5. ........................ W I T H WRIT PETITION NO. 3688 OF 1997 Digambar s/o. Baburao Bhosale, Age : 37 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. C/o. S.R.Durukkar, Hambire Plot, Bank Colony, Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The Union of India. (3) 2. Chairman cum Managing Director, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., New India Assurance Building, 87, M.G. Road, Fort, Bombay - 23. 3. Regional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Sharda Centre, Behind Nal Stop, Karve Road, Pune. 4. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Hutatma Smriti Mandir Complex, Park Chowk, Solapur. 5. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Shivaji Chowk, Main Road, Osmanabad. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. M.K. Deshpande, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for respondent no.1. Mr. D.S. Kulkarni, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.L. Kulkarni, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 to 5. ........................ (4) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 13TH JULY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The petitioners have filed these petitions seeking a direction to the respondents, to confirm the services of the petitioners from Grade-II to Grade-I, as per 1987 amendment, with effect from 23rd November 1988. 2. According to the petitioners, the petitioners were asked orally, to join as Probationary Development Officers, in November 1987. On 18th February 1988, they were given provisional letter of appointment as Probationary Development Officers. According to the petitioners, on 22nd August 1988, the Development Officers' Scheme was amended and thereby certain changes were effected which are to the detriment of the petitioner. The petitioners were confirmed on 14th May 1990. The petitioners were thereafter given Grade-I on 1st April 1995. According to the petitioners, the petitioners were entitled for upgradation in Grade-I in the year 1988 and, therefore, they made various representations. They went unheard. Hence, the present petition for the relief aforesaid. (5) 3. Mr. M.K. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that since the petitioners are working since 1987, they are entitled to upgradation to Grade-I as per the norms that were provided in 1987 Scheme. He submits that, however, in the month of July 1990, the norms have been changed to the detriment of the petitioners, thereby depriving the petitioners from the legitimate right to Grade-I. He submits that the explanation, to the communication dated 30th July 1990 itself, would clarify that norms cannot be changed to the detriment of the persons who are already confirmed in service. 4. Mr. D.S. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 to 5, on the contrary, submits that the petitioners, having willingly accepted the appointment order dated 30th August 1988, cannot now turn around and say that the terms and conditions of the said appointment would not be applicable to the petitioners. 5. No doubt, that it is a settled principle of law, that service conditions of an employee cannot be changed by an employer to his detriment. The question that would be relevant to be considered is, as to whether any of the service conditions of the petitioners have been changed to their detriment by the respondents. In so far as the contention of the petitioners, that they were appointed in November 1987, is concerned, we are (6) not inclined to accept the same. It is difficult to believe, that in an organization like that of respondent no.2, which is a public undertaking, an appointment could be made orally. 6. From the order dated 18th February 1988, it can clearly be seen that the petitioners were appointed with effect from 1st January 1988. The said letter is a provisional letter of appointment. The letter of appointment, as a Probationary Development Officer, Grade-II, has been issued on 30th August 1988. The said letter clearly states that the petitioners would be on probation for a period of two years. Paragraph 4 of the letter stipulates the target to be achieved during the probation period. However, in so far as upgradation to Grade-I is concerned, the relevant paragraph would be paragraph 7, which reads thus : " Please be informed that the Company may consider certain number of Development Officers Grade-II (on their confirmation) for appointment as Development Officers Grade_I subject to certain norms being satisfied. While details of these norms will be communicated through circulars in due course, these will inter alia relate to (a) qualification in insurance examination, (b) confirmation to cost norms with margines, (c) growth in premium, and (d) work record. (7) Selection to the Grade of Development Officers Grade-I will be strictly in accordance with rank prepared on the basis of prescribed norms and would depend upon the number of vacancies in the said post as the company may determine from time to time. " It can, thus, be clearly seen that paragraph 7 provides that the Company may consider the appointment of the Development Officer in Grade-II, as Development Officer in Grade-I, subject to norms being satisfied. It has been specifically stated that such norms would be communicated through circulars in due course and those norms would relate to qualification in insurance examination, confirmation to cost norms with margines, growth in premium and work record. The contention of the petitioner, that paragraph 4 provides the norms for upgradation in Grade-I, is concerned, the same is without any substance. The said norms are for the purpose of continuation of an employee during the probation period. An employee is required to adhere to the said norms during probation period. 7. Reading paragraph 7 of the communication dated 30th August 1988, would reveal that the respondents were very much empowered to prescribe the norms at a later point of time, for being considered upgradation in Grade-I. The petitioners, (8) after completion of probation, were confirmed on 1st January 1990. As such, they were entitled to be considered for upgradation to Grade-I, provided the norms which were specified in the instructions dated 30th July 1990 stood satisfied. We are unable to accept the contention, that the norms stipulated vide communication dated 30th July 1990 have been retrospectively made applicable to the appointment of the petitioner. In the appointment order, and specifically paragraph 7, it has been provided that the selection of Development Officer Grade-I, from the post of Development Officer Grade-II, would be subject to certain norms which would be communicated through circulars in due course. At the cost of repetition, the norms in the communication dated 30th August 1988, were for continuation as a Probationary Development Officer Grade-II and not upgradation as Development Officer Grade-I. The petitioners were very much put on notice, that they would be considered for upgradation as Development Officer Grade-I, subject to satisfaction of norms, which norms would be communicated in due course. We are unable to accept the contention of the petitioners, that the service conditions were changed to their detriment. In so far as contention of the petitioners, that they were entitled for upgradation as Development Officer Grade-I under the norms stipulated in the appointment order dated 30th August 1988, and not under the norms stipulated in the communication dated 30th July 1990, is (9) concerned, we are unable to accept the said contention also. The appointment of the petitioners, as apparent from the record, is only in the year 1988. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioners were appointed in the year 1987 as Development Officer Grade-II. The said contention also deserves to be rejected. 8. Having found no merit in the petitions, the petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp3687etc