1. Heard parties.

2. Since in both the cases the identical issue has been raised, as such, with the consent of the parties, both the applications are being disposed of by this common order.

3. For the sake of convenience, the fact of CWJC No.10046 of 2011 (Pankaj Kumar Vs LIC of India) is being considered, as and when required, the Court will take the fact mentioned in CWJC No.11757 of 2011 (Ranjan Kumar Vs. LIC of India).

4. As in both the cases, the issue has been raised about the confirmation of the employee, who was taken in service on apprentice basis, and after the maximum period of extension, the person continued more than the maximum of the probation period, will be deemed to have been confirmed in the service, is the issue to be dealt with.

5. In the present case, Pankaj Kumar is challenging the order of his termination vide letter dated 06.04.2011 and the order of appeal dated 13.05.2011 in CWJC No.10046 of 2011 by which it has been communicated that the appeal does not lie to a person who has been terminated from the post of Probationary Development Officer and in CWJC No.11757 of 2011, Ranjan Kumar has challenged the order of termination, has been effected by orde