JUDGMENT 1. - This matter has come up today for final disposal and as such is being disposed of, reply having been filed by the non-petitioner. 2. Admittedly, when each of the petitioner was appointed under order dated 30th July 1988 on the post of helper in the Rajasthan State Handloom Development Corporation Limited, respondent, there were no service rules or regulations in force. It was only by resolution No. 25 State (sic) 10 dated 6th Dec. 1988 that the Rajasthan State Handloom Development Corporation Employees Recruitment Rules, 1987 (for short the Rules) were adopted. The appointment of each of the petitioners along with two others was on consolidated salary of Rs. 600/- per month and the period of probation was six months. It was stated in the aforesaid order of appointment that if after the period of probation of six months their work was found satisfactory, they will be appointed permanently in the pay scale of helper. It is a case of the petitioners that their period of probation was extended by an order dated 6th April 1989. The said period of probation was extended from 1st February 1989 to 30th April 1989. According to the petitioners each of them had completed the aforesaid extended period of probation satisfactorily. But still none of them has been confirmed. The petitioners have claimed that after the expiry of the period of probation they should be declared to be regularly appointed helpers and on the basis of Equal Pay for Equal Work from the date of their appointment as helper, they should be allowed the same pay scale which is payable to the helper. 3. Show cause notice was issued and reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent wherein it has not been disputed that each of the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of helper for a period of six months. It has also not been said that the work of each of the petitioner was not found satisfactory during the period of probation and, therefore, they were not confirmed and the period of probation was extended from time to time and the petitioners are still on probation. 4. It has also not been said that the work of each of the petitioner was not found satisfactory during the period of probation and, therefore, they were not confirmed and the period of probation was extended from time to time and the petitioners are still on probation. 4. A perusal of the reply filed by the respondent will show that along with it a few annexures have been filed but surprisingly none of those annexures say that the period of probation was extended from time to time and there is no endorsement on any of these orders. They do not bear any date. Even assuming that they were the reports from the officers under whom each of the petitioner was working about their allegedly unsatisfactory work and thereafter orders must have been issued extending the period of probation of each of the petitioner, neither any such order has been produced nor it has been stated in the reply. It can, therefore be said that firstly there being no date on the various annexures R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, and R-6 under which it was reported by the officers that the period of probation of the petitioners should be extended and they, therefore, have become highly suspicious documents. Even if it is taken that such an order was made then there are no such orders on record that the period of probation was extended and the same was communicated to any of the petitioner after the extention as claimed by the petitioners. Each of the petitioner as stated earlier was appointed on 30th July 1988. Only one report in respect of each of the petitioner recommending extending their period of probation for a period of six months has been filed. A perusal of Annex. R-1 to R-8 will show that they relate to each of the petitioner. Under each of them the period of probation of each of the petitioner was recommended to be extended by six months. There is, thus no second order extending the period of probation of the petitioners. A perusal of Annex. R-1 to R-8 will show that they relate to each of the petitioner. Under each of them the period of probation of each of the petitioner was recommended to be extended by six months. There is, thus no second order extending the period of probation of the petitioners. It can, therefore, be said that there is material whatsoever that after the expiry of the period of probation and after the extention of period of probation as aforesaid, even if it be taken to have been an order extending the period of probation in the absence of any date on any of those orders under which the extention was given for six months, there is any order further extending the period of probation. 5. As stated earlier the Rajasthan State Handloom Development Corporation Employees Recruitment Rules, 1987 were only adopted on 6th December 1988 and probation is defined under clause (g) and means an appointment on trial and under clause 17 which deals with the period of probation, it is provided that all persons appointed to a post or service by means of direct recruitment shall be placed on probation for a period of two years and those appointed by promotion shall be placed on probation fora period of one year. It also provides that during the period of probation specified in sub-rule (1), a probationer may be required to undergo such training and to pass such examination as the Corporation may from time to time specify. It further provides that it it appears to the appointing authority at any time during or at the end of the period of probation that the probationer appointed by direct recruitment has failed to give satisfaction, his services may in absolute discretion of appointing authority, be terminated forthwith and he shall not be entitled to any compensation. There is further provision that the appointing authority may in case if it finds that the probationer has not fully made use of his opportunities or that he has failed to give satisfaction, extend the period of probation not exceeding one year in case of a person appointed by direct recruitment and six months in case of person appointed by promotion. Even clause 18 deals with the confirmation and under it a person appointed on probation shall be confirmed in his appointment (i) if he has been declared by the appointing authority to have successfully completed the period of probation or extended period of probation, as the case may be, (ii) has passed the examination prescribed, if any, (iii) permanent post is available, (iv) appointing authority is satisfied that his integrity is unquestionable and he is otherwise considered fit for confirmation. 6. It will, therefore, be clear from the perusel of the aforesaid referred clauses of the rules that even under rules, the initial period of probation should not be less than two years and shall be further extended to one year. Because the respondents also adopted the same rules in December 1988 on the expiry of the period of probation of six months for which the petitioners were appointed, and assuming that the petitioners appointments were to be governed by the rules and regularisation in force from time to time and at best it can be said that the period of probation of the petitioners could have been for two years and it could not be extended after the expiry of six months. At any rate after the expiry of six months of extending the period of probation as aforesaid there is no order on record that the period of probation was further extended. It can, therefore, be said that in cases of each of the petitioners, they were initially appointed when the rules were not in force, after the expiry of period of probation the period was further extended by six months and thereafter there was no order extending the period of probation of the petitioners. It is an individual feature that the work of an employee may or may not be satisfactory. But satisfactory or unsatisfactory work cannot be generally of a group of persons. It does not appeal to reason that all the eight petitioners who were placed on probation, their work would have been found unsatisfactory and except the report which only mentions that only they were asked to improve their work orally, it does not appear in what respect their work was found unsatisfactory. It does not appeal to reason that all the eight petitioners who were placed on probation, their work would have been found unsatisfactory and except the report which only mentions that only they were asked to improve their work orally, it does not appear in what respect their work was found unsatisfactory. I am, therefore of the opinion that it cannot be said that each of the petitioner was appointed on probation for two years and all that can be said is that each of the petitioner was appointed when the rules were not in force and their appointment was for six months and it was further extended by six months and thereafter it was not extended and it was presumed that their work was satisfactory and they were entitled for confirmation. The very fact is that the rules were adopted on 6th Dec. 1988 and the petitioners were not placed on probation for the remaining part of two years and all of them have completed six months of probation, goes to show that the respondent did not consider that the service conditions and the appointment of the petitioners were governed by the rules which came into effect lateron, and that is why the probation of each of the petitioner was extended by further six months and not by remaining part of two years. 7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that each of the petitioner is entitled for confirmation and regularisation. They are declared regular after the period of probation of one year and hall be entitled to be placed in the regular pay scale of helper within a period of one year of appointment. Difference in pay of Rs. 600/- p.m. and minimum of pay scale of helper along with allowances shall be payable to each of the petitioner by the non-petitioner. It should be paid as soon as possible but in no case later than six months. But each of the petitioner shall be entitled to the minimum scale in the pay scale of helper from the month of July 1990 i.e. the salary payable for the month of July 1990 in the month of August 1990. They will be entitled for all consequential benefits in accordance with rules. To the extent aforesaid the petition is allowed. Costs made easy.Petition allowed. *******