Delhi High Court
Lalit Kumar vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation ... on 14 March, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 3882/2010
% 14th March, 2013
LALIT KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, Advocate.
versus
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. V.N. Kohra, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside of the
impugned order dated 26.06.2002 reverting the petitioner to substantive cadre of
workman. The petitioner at the time of reversion was working as a probationer in
the post of an officer.
2. Since the language of the letter dated 26.06.2002 would be material for
disposing of this writ petition, this letter is reproduced as under:-
W.P.(C) 3882/2010 Page 1 of 5
"BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
( A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISE)
Noida Regional Office.
CHRS:PROM:1999 June 26. 2002
NOTE TO : MR. LALIT KUMAR
STAFF NO. 5261
OFFICER (ON PROBATION)
THROUGH: DGM (HR SERVICES) NORTH
Dear Sir,
YOURSELF : REVERSION TO SUBSTANTIVE CADRE
We refer to our letter Ref. CHRS.RC.IS99 dated 7th September, 1999
advising you of your promotion to the Management Cadre as Officer
(on probation in Job Group „A‟)
Your performance during the probationary period has not been found
satisfactory despite being given several opportunities to improve upon
the same and therefore, your probationary period was extended on 5
occasions as detailed below :
1. Note Ref. NR. HRS. BA 5261. CON dated 26.9.2000
2. Note Ref. NR. HRS. BA 5261. CON dated 17.01.2001
W.P.(C) 3882/2010 Page 2 of 5
3. Note Ref. NR. HRS. BA DOSS. CON dated 08.08.2001
4. Note Ref. NR. HRS. BA DOSS. CON dated 21.09.2001
5. Note Ref. NR. HRS. BA DOSS. CON dated 12.12.2001
We regret to note that, inspite of giving you several opportunities to
improve upon your performance, the same has not come up to the
desired level and therefore, it has been decided to revert you to your
substantive cadre with immediate effect as per the provisions of the
above referred promotion letter dated 7th September, 1999 issued to
you. Please, therefore, report to DGM (HRS) North, for further
instructions.
Consequent upon you reversion, you will continue to be governed by
the terms and conditions of service of the cadre to which you belonged
immediately prior to your probationary appointment i.e. Assistant.
Please sign the duplicate copy of this letter in token of
acknowledgement and return the same to DGM(HRS)North.
AR SINGRUT
CHIEF MANAGER (CORP HRS)"
W.P.(C) 3882/2010 Page 3 of 5
3. It is not disputed that the petitioner‟s probation continued and the petitioner
was given, though, need not have been given, the various extensions of probation
period.
4. In spite of repeated extensions, the petitioner‟s suitability in the post in
which he was on probation was found to be less than what was required.
5. The order of reversion dated 26.06.2002 is not stigmatic.
6. The law with respect to termination of services or reversion of services from
a post where the employee is working on probation is clear. The Court does not sit
in the arm chair of the person who has to see the suitability of the probationer.
Unless and until there is a case of violation of the rules by the organization or ex
facie gross malafides, the Courts are not to interfere with the orders in not
confirming a probationer to the post.
7. Counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner should not have been put
to a test to decide the suitability of the petitioner to the post in which he was in
probation because no other employee was put to such test. This argument, I find
really turns the issue of equity on its head, because the fact of the matter is that the
respondent/employer was not bound to put the petitioner to a test, and it could have
simply reverted the petitioner on account of his non-suitability but the respondent
was more than liberal in giving a chance to the petitioner for showing his
W.P.(C) 3882/2010 Page 4 of 5
suitability by passing a test, but, the petitioner failed even in the tests. Therefore, I
find it as a strange argument that if the respondent-organization has been liberal, it
has done a wrong in taking a liberal approach. The argument is wholly without
merit and is therefore, rejected.
8. In my opinion, the writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground
of gross delay and laches. The impugned order is dated 26.06.2002 and the writ
petition is filed in the year 2010. The first representation of the petitioner was
rejected way back in the year 2003. Merely because repeated representations are
made cannot mean that the petitioner will be entitled to keep on delaying in
approaching the Court. The petition is, therefore, barred by delay and laches.
9. In view of the above, there is no merit in petition, which is accordingly
dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
MARCH 14, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
j
