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 order dated 06.04.2011

6. The fact of the case of petitioner Pankaj Kumar, is that he had appeared against the advertisement published by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as L.I.C. of India) for appointment to the post of Development Officer, cleared the written examination, was called for the personality test where also he was declared successful and finally, he was appointed as Apprentice Development Officer vide letter dated 22.10.2008 (Annexure-3), after successful completion of the apprentice training, the petitioner was appointed as Probationary Development Officer in LIC of India vide letter dated 28.01.2009 (Annexure-4). The terms and the conditions of the said appointment postulates, the period of probation at first stint was of 12 months, on non-completion of satisfactory service, discretion has been provided to the Management to extend the period of probation for further 12 months, in totality, the maximum period of probation was 24 months and in no case, it would go beyond 24 months. The petitioner’s twelve months came to an end on 27.01.2010 as he was not found fit for confirmation, vide letter dated 27.01.2010, the period of probation was further extended for 12 months and that came to an end on 27.01.2011, but he continued to work in service up to 5th of April, 2011, was terminated from service vide order dated 6.04.2011 (Annexure-1).

7. Submission has been made by the counsel for the petitioners that 24 months is the maximum extended period of probation as per the terms and conditions of the appointment letter it cannot be extended beyond 24 months in that event the employee continued to discharge the duty after 24 months will be treated to have been automatically confirmed in the service and for all purposes, he will be treated to a permanent employee of the LIC of India and there was/is no need to issue any letter of confirmation after the lapse of 24 months as it will be automatic confirmation in the service. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the following judgments reported in AIR 1968 SC 1210 ( State of Punjab Vs. Dharam Singh), AIR 1988 SC 286 (M.K. Agarwal Vs. Gurgaon Gramin Bank and Ors.), AIR 1986 SC 1844 (Om Prakash Maurya Vs. U.P. Co-Operative Sugar Factories Federation, Lucknow and Ors.) and AIR 1992 SC 947 (P.C. Bumotra Vs. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, New India Assurance Co.Ltd. And another), second point has been raised that the order of termination has been effected from retrospective date, is per se illegal, there cannot be any termination with the retrospective effect inasmuch as the tenor of the letter of termination reflects the stigma. If the stigma has been attached, it requires show cause, inquiry and only then, the order of termination with stigma can be effect