Supreme Court Allows Employee in Cooperative Service Case Due to Confirmation by Implication. Employee's Probation Period Expired Without Confirmation Order, Leading to Illegal Reversion.

In Favour of Accused
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose between an employee and the U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation regarding the legality of a reversion order. The appellant, Om Prakash Maurya, joined Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. as an Office Superintendent and was promoted to Commercial Officer on probation. His probation was extended but no confirmation order was issued after the maximum period of two years. The appellant challenged his reversion to Office Superintendent, arguing he was confirmed by implication after the probation period. The High Court ruled against him, stating no rule prohibited extending probation. The Supreme Court, however, found that the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975, which limit probation to two years, applied to the appellant's case. The court emphasized that once the maximum probation period expired without a confirmation order, the appellant was deemed confirmed. The court held that the reversion order was illegal and directed that the appellant be treated as in service with payment of wages and allowances. The appeal was allowed, and costs were awarded to the appellant.

Headnote

A) Employment Law - Service Rules Applicability - Primacy of Regulations - U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, Sections 121, 122 - The court held that the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 govern the appellant's employment, and the U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Service Rules, 1976 do not override these regulations. The appellant was confirmed by implication upon the expiry of the maximum probationary period, thus making the reversion order illegal (Paras 87D-E, 82D-H).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Service Rules, 1976 override the U.P. Cooperative Societies’ Employees Service Regulations 1975 and the implications of probationary period completion.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the reversion order dated 2.9.1983, and directed that the appellant be treated in service with payment of wages and allowances.

Law Points

  • Service rules applicability
  • probationary period confirmation
  • reversion legality
  • statutory interpretation
  • primacy of regulations
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1986 LawText (SC) (05) 25

Civil Appeal No. 491 of 1985

1986-05-09

K.N. Singh, O. Chinnappa Reddy

1986 AIR 1844, 1986 SCR (3) 78, 1986 SCC Supl. 95

Pankaj Kalra, Rameshwar Dial, Sarv Mitter

Om Prakash Maurya

U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation, Lucknow & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to the legality of a reversion order issued to an employee.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought to quash the reversion order and be treated as confirmed in service.

Filing Reason

The appellant argued that he was confirmed by implication after the maximum probation period expired.

Previous Decisions

The High Court ruled that the appellant could not be deemed confirmed as there was no rule prohibiting the extension of the probationary period.

Issues

Applicability of service rules Confirmation by implication after probation

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued he was confirmed after the probation period expired. The respondents contended that the probation could be extended indefinitely under their rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court established that the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 govern the employment conditions, and upon the expiration of the maximum probation period without confirmation, the employee is deemed confirmed.

Judgment Excerpts

The order of reversion is illegal. The appellant stood confirmed by implication on the expiry of maximum probationary period.

Procedural History

The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the reversion order, which was dismissed by the High Court. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • U.P. Cooperative Societies Act: 121, 122
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Cooperative Society Membership Cancellation. Registrar's power to cancel membership under Section 27 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 upheld for non-payment of dues.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Sets Aside Tribunal Order for Ignoring Mandatory Promotion Regulations but Directs Inclusion in IPS Notification. Absence of No Deterioration Certificate Rendered Appointment Invalid, Yet Equitable Relief Granted for State's Lapse Under...