KALU RAM Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: -

(2.) Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that the petitioner was engaged as Sweeper in the year, 1973 in the Branch of Punjab National Bank, Lubh, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra. The petitioner joined his duty as Sweeper on 1.1.1973 and Rs. 30/ - was paid as salary, at the time of joining. As per petitioner, he had been continuously working as Sweeper with the respondent -bank right from his initial date of appointment i.e. 1.1.1973 till date and during this period his salary had been increased from time to time. At the time of filing petition, petitioner was getting salary of Rs. 1500/ - per month. The petitioner averred in the petition that he had been serving with the respondent bank for the last more than 36 years but no steps whatsoever, have been taken by the respondent -bank to regularize his services by the respondent bank. Petitioner further submitted that during his service with bank, he worked with utmost satisfaction of the respondent bank and during this period no complaint, whatsoever, was ever made against the petitioner but just to the misfortune of the petitioner, he has been dealt in most unreasonable, arbitrary and unjust manner by the respondent -bank. His services has not been regularized till date. He also averred in the petition that during this period of 36 years, respondent bank took work of Peon from him and as such, he was compelled to file Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 5064 / 2009, titled as Kalu Ram Vs. Punjab National Bank before this Court. This Court vide judgment dated 24.2.2010 (Annexure P -3) directed him to make a representation to the respondents within a period of 1 month with a direction to the respondents to decide the same within a period of three months. The petitioner in terms of judgment dated 24.2.2010 made representation to the authorities of the respondent bank but during the pendency of the representation, his services were put to an end and he was given a sum of Rs.22,403 / -as gratuity benefits dues. Respondents vide order dated 5.6.2010(Annexure P -5) rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that he was engaged in the year, 1973 in the respondent bank but since his salary was being paid as per Sastry Award/ Bipartite settlement, his services cannot be regularized. Respondents also observed that petitioner was appointed as part time Sweeper and as per the guidelines applicable under Sastry Award, he is not entitled for any service benefits except the gratuity which stands duly paid in his favour after his retirement w.e.f. 30.4.2010. The present petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 5.6.2010, whereby his representation was rejected by the respondents, approached this Court by way of present writ petition. As per the petitioner office order dated 5.6.2010 is not sustainable in the eyes of law, especially when the petitioner has been continuously working with the respondent bank since 1973 and during this period he did not work as Sweeper or part time worker but had been rendering services of Peon as directed by the authorities in the said branch from time to time. The petitioner further contended that technical objections being taken at this stage by the respondent bank are highly illegal and erroneous and cannot be allowed to use to defeat the legitimate claim of the petitioner. It is also contended by the petitioner in the petition that despite his being working with the respondent bank for the almost 36 years, respondents have failed to regularize his services and such action of the respondent Bank is highly arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and same deserves to be rectified in accordance with law.

(3.) As per the petitioner, at the time of his initial appointment with the bank, there were no schemes/ guidelines applicable under Sastry Award and as such, respondents cannot be allowed to take advantage/benefit, if any, of the so called Sastry Award that too to defeat the legitimate claim of the petitioner.