M RAJAIAH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitons constitute a batch between the similarly placed petitioners in all respects and the common respondents. They also sprout out queries of synonymous lex and factum. The antonym is individual grievances among the common. Spread Sheet-T is a chart comprising enumerated cases each batch, branches of the bank in which the petitioners are working (or were working), names of the Advocates and the reliefs claimed. The 1st respondent is the Central Office of the State Bank of India, the 2nd respondent the Chief Genera! Manager, Hyderabad, the 3rd respondent Deputy General Manager, Department of Commercial network, local Head Office, Hyderabad, 4th respondent-Deputy General Manager, Hyderabad and the 5th respondent, the Asst. General Manager, Region-11, Zonal Office, Hyderabad as described in WP No.9206/97 and similar branches and its offices as described in other writ petitions. Distinguishably, the respondents in all the cases can be classified as the State Bank of India, its branches and the officers.

(2.) The petitioners are the hapless and helpless workers of the State Bank of India, called the temporary employees/daily wage casual workers/empanelled workers rolled into the expression 'subordinate staff, being designated as messengers, sweepers, water boys, watchman etc. Their services tenure in the bank service varies from 8 days at a time to 18 years, as a whole as projected sometimes on casual basis on daily payment and sometimes on wage basis and sometimes on regular scale basis, but intermittently without continuity in service. Most of the petitioners are the members belonging to SC and ST. It appears that they were engaged as such from 1974 onwards. They were appointed both from the list of the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange and directly by holding interviews. It appears that all of them possess the basic educational qualification having passed 8th class.

(3.) Having not been absorbed in the suitable posts by the bank inspite of their services rendered for a longtime with unsecured tenure, they and similarly placed employees took up the matter with the Bank through All India State Bank of India Staff Federation (in short, the Federation) to absorb them or regularise them in such posts. The management of the Bank also decided to provide them an opportunity to be considered for permanent appointment from among them who were found to be suitable for permanent appointment. That resulted in a settlement between the Federation and the Bank dated 17-11-1987 under Section 2(p) and 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act read with Rule 58 of the Industrial Dispute Central Rules (in short, the Act and the Rules). Under this settlement they were classified into three categories, viz., (i) those who have completed 240 days' temporary service in 12 months or less after 1-7-1975, (ii) those who have completed 270 days' aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-1975, and (iii) those who have completed a minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1-7-1975 or a minimum of 70 days' aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-1975. Certain conditions were prescribed to fix their suitability for their permanent appointment in the bank under the settlement. They were to be interviewed by a selection committee to determine the suitability. Clause 7 of the agreement provided for preparing the panel of the selected candidates to be wait listed in the order of the respective categorisation and the panels so prepared were to be valid upto December 1991. It also spelt out the various criteria for consideration and procedure to be followed in absorbing such wait listed candidates in the panels. In pursuance of the settlement, applications were called for from such of the temporary eligible employees by a notification of the Bank in the local newspapers for the purpose of absorption. The petitioners applied in response to the said notification. They were called for written test and viva voce in May 1989. Accordingly the petitioners took the written test and faced viva voce conducted by the selection committee of the Bank, they were selected along with similar candidates and wait listed in the panels prepared by the Bank. It appears that all the petitioners were in such panels to be initially in force upto December, 1991. It appears that one more opportunity was afforded to such employees who had not applied in pursuance of the first notification and they were also empanelled in such lists by adopting same procedure. Some of the empanelled candidates were absorbed by the Bank whereas the petitioners were not absorbed and they continued as such till 31-3-1997. The life of such panels were extended from time to time as per the settlements between the Management and the Employees Federation till 31-3-1997. The petitioners who were working and not working as such as on 31-3-1997 and who were continued by virtue of the Interim Order of this Court are as per Spread Sheet I.