ALOK KUMAR Vs. PAWAN HANS LTD. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner; who was appointed as a General Manager (Operations) with the respondent no.1/company/Pawan Hans Ltd; impugning the letter dated 16.7.2014 of the respondent no.1 terminating the probationary services of the petitioner.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner originally was working in the Indian Air Force and he thereafter sought employment with the respondent no.1. Petitioner states that respondent no.1 had requested the Indian Air Force for suggesting name of candidates for filling up the vacancies of General Manager (Operations) on immediate absorption basis. Petitioner was informed by the respondent no.1's letter dated 5.8.2011 offering him the post in question and stating that since the post is on immediate absorption basis, the petitioner will have to seek separation of his services from Indian Air Force prior to joining the respondent no.1. Petitioner left the services of Indian Air Force and joined the respondent no.1 in terms of the appointment letter dated 2.8.2011. The relevant portion of this appointment letter reads as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_242_LAWS(DLH)2_2015.html</FRM>

(3.) Petitioner claims that respondent no.1 wrongly gave the petitioner only probationary services and in fact it is contended that the letter of the appointment dated 2.8.2011 contains conflicting clauses because on the one hand petitioner is appointed on immediate absorption basis whereas the selfsame letter states that the petitioner is on probation. It is also argued that the petitioner is deemed to be confirmed on completion of two years period of probation i.e one year plus extension of one year on the ground that this is so provided by Recruitment Rule 9.1.4 which states that the probation period will only be of one year but which probationary period will not be extended by more than one year for exceptional reasons to be recorded in writing. It is argued that no exceptional reasons have been recorded in writing, and much less communicated to the petitioner, and therefore the petitioner should be taken as a confirmed employee of the respondent no.1. Finally, it is contended that the impugned order dated 16.7.2014 terminating the services of the petitioner is stigmatic in nature and therefore the same is illegal because it has been passed without following the principles of natural justice.