TOP BAHADUR CHHETRI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE validity of the three letters containing the decisions of the respondent Bank to terminate the temporary services of the petitioners and of the tenability of their claim for regularizing their temporary services are the common questions of law involved in these writ petitions. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 157(SH) of 2006 was discharged from the Assam Rifles on voluntary retirement in the year 1993, whereafter he was appointed on 20.10.1995 as 'Badli Guard' at the Jowai Branch of the respondent -Bank. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 160(SH) of 2006, after his discharge from the Assam Rifles, also joined the respondent -Bank as Security Guard with effect from 1.11.1992. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 161 (SH) of 2006 was discharged from 58, Gorkha Rifles on 30.9.1991 and joined the respondent -Bank on 01.06.1994 as Security Guard. Apparently, no formal letters of appointments were issued to any of these petitioners. Be that as it may, despite assurance made by the respondent -Bank from time to time for their absorption/regularization of their services, according to the petitioners, no such decisions were taken. On the contrary, by separate letters, they were informed by the Bank -respondents of their decisions to terminate their service w.e.f. 6.4.2003. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 157(SH) 2006 thereupon filed WP(C) No. 73(SH) of 2003 before this Court challenging the decision to terminate his service with a prayer for regularizing his services. On or about the sometime, the petitioners in WP(C) No. 160(SH) of 2006 and WP(C) No. 161(SH) of 2006 also jointly filed WP(C) No. 238(SH) of 2003 claiming similar reliefs.

(2.) IN the said writ petitions, the petitioners contended that since their initial recruitments were done after due assessment of their suitability to the posts in accordance with the extant guidelines of the respondent -Bank, the decision to terminate their services on the ground either of their being over -age or under -qualified was illegal and arbitrary. The respondents -Bank resisted the writ petitions by filing their affidavits -in -opposition. The Bank disputed therein the claim of the petitioners that they were suitable to the posts and contended that they were merely engaged/appointed purely on temporary basis as Badli Guards due to immediate administrative exigencies and that their induction into service was not indicative of their suitability for the posts in question on the basis of the extant guidelines of the Bank. The respondents -Bank pointed out that the suitability or eligibility of the petitioners were duly assessed in the interview held on 16.11.2000 in which it was found that none of them were eligible for their continuance in service in terms of the extant Guidelines. In so far as the petitioner in WP(C) No. 73(SH) of 2003 and the petitioner No. 2 in WP(C) No. 238(SH) of 2003 were concerned, according to the Bank, they were not Ex -Servicemen within the meaning of the Notification No. 36034/5/ AT5 -ESTT (SCT), Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pensions, Govt. of India, New Delhi, dated 27.10.1986, where as the petitioner No. 2 in WP(C) No. 238(SH) of 2003 was found academically deficient. Thus, it was contended by the Bank therein that as the petitioners did not fulfill the eligibility conditions, their decision to terminate their services was legally justified and could not be interfered with by this Court.

(3.) NO appeal was preferred by the Bank -respondents from the aforesaid judgment and order of this Court. Purportedly, in compliance with this judgment and order, the Bank -respondents thereafter issued the impugned letters dated 19.6.2006 addressed to the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Region -I, Zonal Office, Shillong (respondent No. 3) informing him of the decision of the appropriate authority to terminate the services of the petitioners by invoking Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioners promptly filed these three writ petitions for quashing the three identical letters dated 19.6.2006 and for regularizing their respective services in terms of the observations made in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 22.9.2005. It is contended by the petitioners that the proposed termination of their services were done without giving them an opportunity of hearing and that the decision to terminate their services was being done by ignoring the findings of this Court, which have now attained finality, and is contrary to the directions of this Court. Contesting the writ petitions, the Bank -respondents in their affidavits -in -opposition submit that the writ petitions are not maintainable as the petitioners do not avail of an alternative remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that they are not entitled to regularization as their initial appointments have been made purely on temporary and emergency basis without having regard to the eligibility criteria laid down by law. They contend that the petitioner in WP(C) No. 157(SH) of 2006 is not an ex -servicemen in terms of the letter dated 19.10.1987 issued by the Bank, which was merely reiterated in the said letter dated 22.6.1998 and that he was also found over age when he was considered for appointment and also under qualified as per the Bank's Circular dated 1.9.1991. At this stage, it may be noted that the existence of the letters dated 19.10.1987,29.7.1987 and 1.8.1991 (which are annexed to their affidavit -in -opposition at Annexure -I and Annexure -V) were never brought to the notice of this Court earlier. Nor were copies of such documents made available in the earlier writ petition. As will be pointed out latter, these omissions are significant. In WP(C) No. 160(SH) of 2006, the stand taken by the Bank, in addition to their earlier contentions, is that the petitioner did not possess the minimum qualification i.e. Class V as required by the CO Letter No. PA/CIR/101 dated 1.8.1991. In so far as the petitioner in WP(C) No. 161(SH) of 2006 is concerned similar stand is taken by the Bank i.e. he did not even pass Class -V. It may again be noted that these pleas were never taken by the Bank in the earlier writ petition.