CHANDRA DEO Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Display in this petition is the unfortunate departure of the petitioner in the year 2001 who claims himself to be associated with the respondent Bank having been engaged as daily wager (as a messenger in Class IV category), in the year 1981. Petitioner on the premises of his continuance for this long time laid a claim of regularisation. A decision has been taken by the respondent No. 1 pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 31.1.2002 as given in Writ Petition No. 2978 of 2001. By the impugned order dated 17.2.2001 petitioner's claim for regularisation stood rejected and further as stated in the writ petition, to continue in any capacity his fate has been sealed. In view of the exchange of pleading between the parties, as prayed from both side the matter has been heard on merits and is taken up for final decision.

(2.) Sri R.C. Shukla, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Navecn Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vipin Sinha appearing for the respondent Bank have been heard.

(3.) The fact as has been stated on behalf of the petitioner can be summarised thus : Petitioner was engaged as messenger in Class IV category in the year 1981 as daily wage employee and was paid Rupees Ten per day. It is stated that pursuant to the advertisement dated 20th August, 1991 for making permanent appointment from amongst temporary employees, petitioner was interviewed on 18.11.91 in which he successfully qualified. Thereafter as several years intervened and the petitioner was not offered permanent post he represented upon which on 29.12.94, Respondent No. 2 responded by sending communication to the petitioner stating that regional office has informed that as and when in future vacancy will arise for regularising temporary employees petitioner will also be informed according to his seniority. As even thereafter petitioner could not get any result he kept on representing his claim upon which respondent No. 2 made a recommendation to the respondent No. 1 for considering petitioner's claim sympathetically. When even thereafter nothing transpired petitioner came to this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2978 of 2000 in which direction was given on 31.1.2001 for deciding petitioner's claim and it is thereafter the impugned order dated 17.2.2001 came into existence which besides dislodging petitioner of his claim, as stated in Para 30 of the writ petition even restrained the petitioner from even entering the Bank premises and thus petitioner has been deprived of the small amount which he was receiving while working in the capacity of even allegedly as a Canteen Boy. Which is now being averred by the respondents in the counter affidavit.