The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant was for a declaration that he is entitled to pension, an order that he be paid his pension dues and arrears since March 1993; interest on the pension arrears from the date of termination till payment in full and interest on the aggregate sum from the date of filing the suit till judgment. He also prays for the costs of the suit.
Court held that there was no evidence that the retrenchment came at a time when the plaintiff’s probationary appointment was under review, to raise inference that the probation period had been extended for any valid reason. Court was aware that confirmation in Civil Service is dependent upon the employee’s performance and that this is assessed through confidential appraisals. A probationary employee is one whose employment may or may not be confirmed after a specified period. If the employee does not show suitability for the job, he/she may not be confirmed in service. This implied that to be denied confirmation, the employee must of necessity show non-suitability for the job.
In the instant case, the plaintiff joined service on September 15th, 1978. He was shown the exit on March 23rd, 1993, after a period of 15 years in service. No evidence had been presented to court of any wilful default on his part to warrant non-confirmation in the service of the defendant. Court of the considered opinion that the plaintiff became a permanent employee of the defendant upon the lapse of the two year period.