1 2025:CGHC:15861 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2227 of 2025 Hanuman Das Banjare S/o Malik Ram Banjare Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Khaira, Post Dashrangpur, Tehsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner Higher Education, Block 3, 2nd And 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Additional Director Higher Education Directorate, Block 3, 2nd And 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. Principal Acharya Panth Shri Grindhmuni Naam Saheb, Government Postgraduate College, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiyan, Dy. GA Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 04/04/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that fact and law is involved in the case is identical to order passed by Coordinate Bench in WPS No. 5596 of 2023 wherein the Coordinate Bench has passed the following order in paragraphs 9,10,11 and 12 which are as under:- SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.04.07 10:43:04 +0530 2 9. It is a well-established principle of law that government employees cannot be kept on probation for an indefinite period. Further, Rule 8(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, clearly states that the probation period cannot be extended for more than one year without assigning sufficient reason. 10. In the present case, the respondent authorities have not issued specific order with regard to the extension of probation period of the petitioners and at the same time, no decision has been taken for the completion of probation period; thus, the action of the respondents appears to be discriminatory and arbitrary. 11. Taking into consideration the above stated facts, and relying on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dayaram Dayal (supra), this Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioners are entitled to get their services confirmed. 12. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to take an appropriate decision with regard to the confirmation of services of the petitioners on he post of Lab Technician preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As the services of the Lab Attendants, who were appointed pursuant to the same advertisement, were confirmed with effect from 15/05/2015, therefore, the petitioners shall be entitled to similar relief from that date. The petitioners shall also be entitled to get all consequential benefits from 15/05/2015." 2. This factual position has not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent/State. 3. In view of the above, the instant writ petition deserves to be disposed of in terms of the order passed by the coordinate Bench in WPS No. 5596 of 2023 by directing the respondent to take an appropriate decision with regard to the confirmation of services of the petitioners on the post of Lab Technician preferably within a period of 90 days. Accordingly, the writ petition (s) stands disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge santosh