Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3648 (MAD)

K. Swaminathan v. State of Tamil Nadu

2013-10-11

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2013
Judgment : 1. The first petitioner worked as Village Karnam in Nagapattinam District from 1978 till the same was abolished on 14.11.1980. The second petitioner also worked as Village Karnam from 1974 till 14.11.1980 in the same District. 2. Pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.1287, Revenue Department dated 6.7.1988, the petitioners were given appointment as Village Administrative Officers. The first petitioner joined service as Village Administrative Officer on 15.11.1993 and the second petitioner joined as Village Administrative Officer on 26.11.1993. They were put on probation for a period of two years. 3. Within two years of their probation period, they should pass the relevant Departmental Test to get declaration that they have successfully completed the probation. But, no test was conducted within the period of two years. It is not in dispute that due to administrative reasons, the Department did not conduct the departmental test within the two years. 4. The Departmental Test was conducted only on 23.1.2004. The petitioner participated in the Test and they were successful in the test. Based on the same, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.470, Revenue Department dated 16.11.2009 declaring that the petitioners completed the probation with effect from 23.1.2004, the date on which the Departmental Test was conducted and also the petitioners passed the Departmental Test. 5. While so, the first petitioner retired from service on 31.7.2009 on reaching the age of superannuation. Likewise, the second petitioner retired from service on 30.6.2006. Since their probation was declared only on 23.1.2004, they were not given terminal benefits. Further, though they were given annual increments, the same were sought to be recovered upto 2004, since their probation was declared only on 23.1.2004. 6. Hence, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition to quash G.O.(D) No.470, Revenue Department dated 16.11.2009 insofar as it denies annual increments to the petitioners till 2004 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to disburse the terminal benefits and pensionary benefits. 7. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. In the counter affidavit, it is admitted that the Departmental Test was not conducted for a long time after 1983. But, it was conducted only in January 2004 and the petitioners were successful in the test. It is also stated that the petitioners' services were regularised by issuing G.O.Ms.No.1228, Revenue Department dated 19.10.2004 with effect from 15.11.1993 and 26.11.1993 respectively. 8. But, it was conducted only in January 2004 and the petitioners were successful in the test. It is also stated that the petitioners' services were regularised by issuing G.O.Ms.No.1228, Revenue Department dated 19.10.2004 with effect from 15.11.1993 and 26.11.1993 respectively. 8. The aforesaid facts make it very clear that it is admitted by the respondents that the Departmental Test was not conducted after 1983 and it was conducted only on 23.1.2004. Hence, the petitioners cannot be blamed for not passing Departmental Test within two years during the period of probation. Further, it is admitted that no order was passed extending the period of probation. 9. In similar circumstances, this Court in Writ Petition No.17593 of 2010 by order dated 12.8.2010, held that the petitioner therein is deemed to have satisfactorily completed the probation, since no order extending the probation is passed within six months from the date of expiry of two years. 10. Paragraph 8 of the aforesaid judgment is relevant and it is extracted hereunder: "8. Under Rule 27(b) of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, a person, who is placed on probation, if no order extending the probation is passed within six months from the date of expiry of two years. In this case, admittedly, no orders either terminating the probation or extending the period of probation were passed at any point of time before the petitioner reached the age of superannuation. Therefore, it is not now open to the respondents to put the failure of the petitioner to pass the departmental test against him. As a matter of fact, on the date on which the petitioner reached the age of superannuation, the competent authority has passed orders allowing the petitioner to retire. Therefore, even if by any stroke of imagination the petitioner is taken to have continued only on probation, such probation cannot hereafter be terminated in the light of the fact that he has been permitted to retire." 11. Therefore, the impugned G.O is patently erroneous in declaring the probation of the petitioners from the next day of passing of the departmental test on 23.1.2004. The petitioners should have been declared as satisfactorily completed the probation on completion of two years from their date of appointment as Village Administrative Officers in 1993, particularly when the petitioners passed the test when the same was conducted on 23.1.2004 at the first instance. 12. The petitioners should have been declared as satisfactorily completed the probation on completion of two years from their date of appointment as Village Administrative Officers in 1993, particularly when the petitioners passed the test when the same was conducted on 23.1.2004 at the first instance. 12. It is also relevant to take note of the fact that service of the petitioners were regularised by G.O.Ms.No.1228, Revenue Department dated 19.10.2004. 13. Hence, the impugned G.O.Ms.No.470, Revenue Department dated 16.11.2009 insofar as declaring probation on the next day of passing the Departmental Test on 23.1.2004, is quashed. The first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders, if necessary by relaxing the necessary Rules, declaring that the petitioners have satisfactorily completed the probation on expiry of two years of service with effect from 15.11.1993 and 26.11.1993 respectively. The first respondent is directed to undertake the aforesaid exercise, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to settle the terminal benefits to the petitioner by sending pension proposals to the concerned authority, within a period of four weeks thereafter. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.