MAN PHOOL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the relief claimed is for issuance of a writ of Certiorari quashing the orders dated 22-1-87, 10-3-87 and 16-11-90 (Annexure-2, 3 and 9 respectively), and for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing (he respondent nos. 3 and 4, the Bank to regularize the services of petitioner and to pay him arrears of his wages.

(2.) PORTRAYAL of the essential facts are that the petitioner was appointed by respondent nos. 3 and 4, namely, the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Farrukhabad and the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Mahatma Oandhi Marg, Kanpur, as Water Boy on 13-8-79 and *was serving the State Bank of India, Farrukhabad, respondent no. 3. He was appointed on daily wages at the rate of Rs. 6/- per day. He worked in that capacity till 3-12-79. He discharged his duties in the Bank on working days and served at the residence of the Manager of the State Bank of India on holidays. Even though for that period he was not paid any wages. The petitioner has completed 113 days of service including holidays. The petitioner was paid his wages for 96 days. In para 4 of the writ petition it was stated that he was paid a total sum of Rs. 597/- as his wages from 13-8-79 to 3-12-79 on 12 different dates. The amount on different dates was paid thus Rs. 54/, Rs. 48/, Rs. 36/, Rs. 36/, Rs. 45/-, Rs. 66/-, Rs. 60/-. Rs. 48/-, Rs. 54-, Rs. 30/-, Rs. 54/ and Rs. 48/-. The amounts, however included the payment of wages for 7 days and a half for holidays, i.e., 14th, 15th, 19th, 25th and 26th August, 1979, 2nd September, 8th September and 9th September, 1979. For 15th August, however, he was paid only half of the wage. In view of the circular issued by the respondent Bank as the petitioner served more than 90 days, he acquired a right to be regularised and a right for being offered permanent appointment. On 28-5-86 he made a representation with a prayer to permit him to serve the Bank (Annexure-1 to the petition).

(3.) CONVERSELY learned counsel for the respondents refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and urged that the petitioner has worked only for 83 days. The chart Annexure-C.A, 1 appended to the counter affidavit indicates the number of days the petitioner worked. Hence the claim of the petitioner for regularisation was unfounded, and that as the petitioner was a Law Graduate when he accepted the Job as a Water Boy, was over qualified for regularization as he was in the capacity of Class IV employee. Much emphasis was laid by the learned counsel on this aspect of the matter and he pointed out that Annexure-I2 to the counter affidavit was a circular relevant for the purpose, which indicates that 90 days must have been completed as a daily wager and his qualification must not have been more than Class VIII. Reliance was placed on State Bank of India v. S. N. Sunderamoney, AIR 1976 SC 1111 and Hoshnak Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 1328.