Failure to declare probation cannot defeat pensionary benefits after retrospective regularisation and unblemished superannuated service.

The respondent was appointed on compassionate grounds as a Junior Assistant in a Government Higher Secondary School on 16 August 1996.

Although his probation was not formally declared, he continued in service.

The Government subsequently regularised his services retrospectively from the date of initial appointment by G.O.(1D) No.152, School Education Department, dated 25 April 2016.

The respondent was permitted to retire on attaining superannuation on 31 May 2013, without any pending charge memo, allegation, or adverse disciplinary proceedings.

The writ court allowed the respondent’s petition, holding that his services had been regularised and that probation had been declared in proceedings dated 29 June 2016.

The Department filed the present intra-court appeal, disputing the finding that probation had been declared.

Whether the respondent’s failure to pass the mandatory departmental test justified non-declaration of probation and denial of terminal and pensionary benefits after he had been permitted to continue in service until superannuation?

Whether retrospective regularisation of the respondent’s service from the date of initial appointment, coupled with the Department’s failure either to extend his probation or discharge him from service, entitled him to retirement and pensionary benefits notwithstanding the absence of a formal declaration of probation?

The Court applied Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, which provides that a probationer is eligible for increments on the normal dates irrespective of formal declaration of satisfactory completion of probation, subject to the statutory provisions concerning extension of probation on grounds of unsuitability.

The Court further applied the service-law principle that where an employee fails to pass a mandatory departmental test during probation, the competent authority may extend the probationary period or discharge the employee from service; however, the employee cannot ordinarily be prejudiced by the Department’s failure to take either course while allowing continued service until superannuation.

Retrospective regularisation from the date of initial appointment was treated as a material circumstance supporting entitlement to terminal and pensionary benefits.

The appellate court accepted that the respondent’s probation had not formally been declared because he had not passed the requisite departmental test.

However, Section 30 recognised his entitlement to increments notwithstanding the absence of a formal probation declaration, and the Department had in fact sanctioned an increment.

More importantly, after completion of the probationary period, the Department neither extended his probation nor discharged him for failure to pass the test; instead, it allowed him to serve continuously until superannuation and permitted him to retire without blemish.

The Government also regularised his service retrospectively from 16 August 1996.

In these circumstances, the Department’s own inaction over a prolonged period could not be used to deprive the respondent of statutory retirement and pensionary benefits after approximately 17 years of unblemished service.

Although the writ court’s factual finding that probation had been declared was incorrect, the ultimate relief was justified on the broader service-law principles identified by the appellate court.

Since the respondent had been retrospectively regularised, continuously retained in service, and permitted to retire without disciplinary blemish, the Department was not entitled to rely on its failure to take timely action regarding probation.

The writ appeal was dismissed, the writ court’s order was confirmed, and the appellants were directed to settle the respondent’s terminal and pensionary benefits within twelve weeks from receipt of the order.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed, with no order as to costs.