Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/13 vs State Bank Of India And 4 Ors on 19 June, 2025
Author: Suman Shyam
Bench: Suman Shyam
Page No.# 1/13
GAHC010009332015
2023:GAU-AS:8702
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1040/2015
PAPLU NATH
S/O- LT. PRASANTA KUMAR NATH, R/O VILL. and P.O.- BAROMONI, DIST.-
CACHAR, ASSAM.
VERSUS
STATE BANK OF INDIA and 4 ORS
HAVING ITS CENTRAL OFFICE AT STATE BANK BHAVAN, MADAM CAMA
ROAD, MUMBAI- 400021, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
2:ZONAL MANAGER
STATE BANK OF INDIA
ZONAL OFFICE
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI.
3:THE ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER ADMIN
STATE BANK OF INDIA
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI.
4:THE ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER
STATE BANK OF INDIA
REGIONAL OFFICE
REGIOIN- IV
SILCHAR
CACHAR.
5:BRANCH MANAGER
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SILCHAR BAZAR BRANCH
Page No.# 2/13
SILCHAR
P.O.- SILCHAR
CACHAR
ASSAM- 788001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A ROY, MR.D P BORAH,MR.M NATH,MR.A
BHATTACHARJEE
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.B DASR-5, MS. ANASUYA C,MR. M SARMA (r-1 to 5),MR. D.
BORAH (r-1 to 5),MR P BHARDWAJ (r-1 to 5),MR. M K CHOUDHURY (r-1 to 5),MS.M DAS(R-
5),MR.G DAS(R-5),MR.L TALUKDAR(R-5)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Date : 19-06-2025
Heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned
counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted
by Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. This is the second occasion when this Court has been called upon to adjudicate the
same issues involved in this writ petition. The writ petitioner herein, who was temporarily
engaged as General Attendant (Sweeper) under the respondent Bank on 15-06-2004,
having rendered more than 21 years of continuous service is before this Court, seeking a
direction for payment of arrear salary and also an order for regularizing his services. This
writ petition was earlier allowed by this Court by judgment and order dated 16-06-2023.
The respondents as appellants had, however, preferred W.A. No. 369/2023 assailing the
judgment and order dated 16-06-2023, inter alia, on the grounds that the prayer of the
writ petitioner had been allowed by drawing parity with another employee, viz. Sibendu
Page No.# 3/13
Kumar Nath, whose service was regularized by the Bank although there was no pleading
in the writ petition to that effect. By taking note of such submissions made by the learned
counsel for the Bank, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had passed order dated 03-
10-2023 disposing of W.A. No. 369/2023 by setting aside the judgment and order dated
16-06-2023 and remanding the matter to be decided afresh by the Single Bench after
granting liberty to the parties to file additional pleadings.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the observations made in the
judgment and order dated 16-06-2023 and also having regard to the order that is
proposed to be passed in the present proceeding, this Court is of the opinion that
although the earlier judgment of this Court, disposing of the present writ petition, has
been set-aside by the Division Bench, yet, it would be necessary to reproduce the
judgment and order dated 16-06-2023 here-in-below for ready reference:
"Heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the writ petitioner.
Also heard Mr. L. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the Bank.
The petitioners case, briefly stated, is that pursuant to a selection process
based on interview, the petitioner was empanelled at Sl. No. 2 in the panel of Gr-IV
employees who are required to be employed under the State Bank of India (SBI),
on temporary basis, as General Attendant (Sweeper) in the district of Cachar. There
were all together three candidates whose names figured in the panel notified on
26-02-2004 by the Assistant General Manager, SBI, Regional Office, Silchar and the
petitioner's name appears in Sl. No. 2 of the panel. Pursuant to the preparation of
the panel, the petitioner was allowed to join as General Attendant in the SBI,
Silchar Bazar Branch w.e.f. 15-06-2004 on the basis of an order of appointment
dated 16-06-2004 issued by the Branch Manager. Since then, the petitioner has
been continuously serving as General Attendant. As a matter of fact, at the
instance of the respondent authorities a Provident Fund (PF) account of the
petitioner was also created by the Provident Fund Pension & Gratuity Department
of the SBI.
Mr. Nath submits that the petitioner has been continuously serving in the
post of General Attendant on temporary basis since the year 2004. Notwithstanding
Page No.# 4/13
the same and despite the fact that the persons above him in the panel, viz. Sri
Sibendu Kumar Nath has already been regularized in service, no action has been
taken by the Bank to regularize petitioner's service although he has rendered more
than 19 years of continuous service till today. That apart submits, Mr. Nath the
petitioner has also not been paid his salary since the month of March, 2010 till
today. Hence, this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus.
Mr. Talukdar, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was empanelled
due to the intervention of some of the senior officials of the Bank who were at the
helm of officers at the relevant point of time. However, it is not a fact that the
petitioner had served as General Attendant all along since the date of his
appointment w.e.f. 15-06-2004. Mr. Talukdar submits that in between, the
petitioner was relegated to the position of daily wage earner and therefore, it
cannot be said that he has rendered continuous service in the post of General
Attendant since the year 2004.
By relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of
UoI & Ors. Vs. Bishambar Dutt, reported in (1996) 11 SCC 341, Mr. Talukdar
submits that unless the appointment was made on regular basis, after due
selection, the question of regularization in service does not arise in the eyes of law.
I have considered the submission made at the bar and have also gone
through the materials available on record. At the very outset, it needs to be noted
herein that appointment of the petitioner was evidently made on the basis of his
position in the panel notified by the SBI authorities on 26-02-2004 wherein the
name of the petitioner appear at Sl. No. 2. The panel was evidently prepared on
the basis of names being sponsored by the District Employment Exchange and
after subjecting the candidates to interview. It is not in dispute that at the relevant
point of time, filling up of Gr-IV post on the basis of names sponsored by the
concerned District Employment Exchange was a permissible and acceptable mode
of recruitment. Thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to join in the post of General
Attendant on the basis of appointment order dated 15-06-2004. It may be correct
to say that the appointment of the petitioner was made on temporary basis but
materials on record, more particularly, the communication dated 07-05-2009
(Annexure-8) goes to show that the appointment of the petitioner was made
against the post which had fallen vacant due to the demise of permanent sweeper
of the Bank, viz. Prem Lal Balmiki who had died on 02-12-2003. Therefore, there is
sufficient materials for this Court to presume that appointment of the petitioner,
although was made on temporary basis, was against a permanent vacancy.
Subsequently, the respondent might have shifted the petitioner from one position
to another and it also appears that at some stage, the petitioner was allowed to
draw only daily wages by denying him the salary and allowances. However, there is
nothing on record produced by the Bank to indicate the basis on which such
treatment was meted out to the petitioner.
It is to be borne in mind that a Gr-IV employee appointed on temporary
Page No.# 5/13
basis will have very little bargaining power when it comes to assignment of duty to
him by the authorities as he or she might be in constant fear of losing the job if he
or she raises any protest against the treatment meted out to by the authorities.
Therefore, unless the action of the Bank in converting the petitioner's temporary
appointment to a daily wage earner is found to be justified under the law, no
credence can be given to such conversion in the eyes of law.
In the present case, the learned counsel for the Bank has failed to produce
any material to show that the appointment of the petitioner in the post of General
Attendant on a pay scale was subsequently converted to the job of a daily wage
earner. On the contrary, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has been
continuously engaged in the service of the Bank since the year 2004 till today.
Therefore, this Court is unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for
the respondents that the appointment of the petitioner was either illegal and/ or
irregular or that there was a break in service so as to deny him the benefit of
regularization.
Law is no doubt settled that regularization cannot be claimed by an
employee as a matter of right. However, it is equally settled that denial of benefit
of regularization to one employee while extending preferential treatment to
another would not only be illegal but also highly discriminatory in the eyes of law.
As noted above, the person appearing in Sl. No. 1, viz. Sibendu Kumar Nath has
already been regularized in service after his initial appointment as General
Attendant. However, even after having rendered continuous service for more than
19 years, the respondent Bank had denied similar treatment to the petitioner
without there being any justifiable ground to do so.
As such, I am of the view that the petitioner has made out a good case for
interference by this Court. This writ petition, therefore, succeeds. The petition is
disposed of with a direction upon the respondent to forthwith take necessary steps
for regularization of services of the petitioner against the post of General Attendant
(Sweeper).
Insofar as the prayer for release of arrear salary is concerned, the
respondent may make an enquiry in the matter and if found due, the arrear salary
of the petitioner be released, subject however, to application of law of limitation in
this regard, which would debar the claim of the petitioner to claim arrear salary
beyond the period of three years from the date of institution of this writ petition.
With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of."
4. A bare reading of the judgment and order dated 16-06-2023 would go to show
that the said judgment was not based entirely on the point of parity between the writ
Page No.# 6/13
petitioner and another employee, viz. Sibendu Kumar Nath, whose services had been
regularized by the Bank as General Attendent but there were other grounds too, on which
this Court had allowed the writ petition. However, I find that the Hon'ble Division Bench,
while reversing the judgment and order dated 16-06-2023, did not expressed any opinion
as regards the validity of the findings and conclusion recorded in the judgment dated 16-
06-2023 as regards the other grounds. Under such circumstances, this Court would be left
with no option but to conclude that save and except the ground of parity drawn in respect
of the writ petitioner and Sibendu Kumar Nath, no other finding and observation,
recorded by this Court in the earlier judgment and order dated 16-06-2023 has been
interfered with by the Division Bench. Such being the position, save and except, dealing
with the issue of parity in considering the claim of the writ petitioner vis-à-vis Sri Sibendu
Kumar Nath, there is no scope for this Court to take a different view on any other issue in
a manner which is contrary to the findings and observations recorded in the judgment
dated 16-06-2023. Having held as above, this Court would now proceed to deal with the
issue of parity, raised by the Bank, as here-under.
5. There is no dispute about the fact that Sibendu Kumar Nath and the writ petitioner
herein were both empanelled at Sl. No. 1 and 2 respectively in a process conducted by
the Bank through the Employment Exchange, for appointment of General Attendents. The
writ petitioner, who was placed at Sl. No. 2 in the panel, was temporarily appointed as a
Sweeper in place of Prem Lal Balmiki, Sweeper who had expired on 02-12-2003. In the
communication dated 07-05-2009 issued by the Branch Manager, State Bank of India
(SBI), Silchar Bazar Branch addressed to the Assistant General Manager (HR), SBI, LHO,
Page No.# 7/13
Dispur, Guwahati (Annexure-8), it has been clearly mentioned that the writ petitioner had
been appointed temporarily as General Attendent (Sweeper) on 15-06-2004, on fulltime
basis, in place of Prem Lal Balmiki, who had expired on 02-12-2003 from the panel
prepared for appointment of General Attendents for the district of Cachar which was
prepared by the Regional Officer at Silchar. In the said letter, it has further been
mentioned that the services of the petitioner was being utilized as fulltime Sweeper. His
salary, including basic pay, DA and HRA had been shown to be Rs. 6277/- per month.
6. The respondent Bank has not denied or disputed the fact that Sibendu Kumar
Nath, who was empanelled at Sl. No. 1 in the panel dated 26-02-2004, was subsequently
regularized as General Attendent pursuant whereto, he was allowed to draw the pay of
Rs. 26,310.51. However, the contention of the respondent Bank is that service of Sibendu
Kumar Nath, who was earlier serving as a Canteen Boy w.e.f. September, 1990, was
regularized pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in the settlement dated 30-
07-1996 entered into by and between the SBI and All India State Bank of India Staff
Federation. As such, according to the Bank, there is no parity in between Sibendu Kumar
Nath and the writ petitioner for the purpose of claiming the right of regularization in
service.
7. Mr. M. Nath, learned Sr. counsel has argued that all the relevant facts have been
correctly recorded by this Court in the judgment and order dated 16-06-2023 and the
conclusion drawn by this Court to the effect that the writ petitioner was similarly situated
as Sibendu Kumar Nath was also on the basis of documentary evidence produced before
the Court at the time of hearing of this writ petition. Mr. Nath has, however, fairly
Page No.# 8/13
submitted that there was no specific pleading in the writ petition as regard the nature of
the procedure followed for regularization of service of Sibendu Kumar Nath, since such
facts were not within the knowledge of his client. Mr. Nath has, therefore, argued that
from the documents produced by the parties, the conclusion drawn by the Court as
reflected in the judgment dated 16-06-2023 was inevitable. Mr. Nath has further submits
that this Court had rightly drawn parity in between Sibendu Kumar Nath and the writ
petitioner while issuing judgment and order dated 16-06-2023 and therefore, there is no
valid ground to alter the said position at this stage.
8. The learned Sr. counsel for the writ petitioner has relied upon and referred to a
decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jaggo Vs. UoI & Ors. reported in
2023 SCC Online SC 3826 to submit that in the aforesaid decision, which was rendered
subsequent to the judgment and order dated 16-06-2023, similar views have been
expressed by the Supreme Court in more or less similar fact situation, by holding that part
time or temporary workers discharging duty of permanent nature for a considerable
period of time, would have a right to be considered for regularization.
9. Responding to the above argument, Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel for
the respondent Bank has submitted that since the services of Sibendu Kumar Nath was
regularized as per the obligation cast upon the Bank under the settlement dated 30-07-
1996, the writ petitioner, who is not covered under the settlement, cannot assert a similar
right. Mr. Choudhury has, however, submitted, in his usual fairness, that both Sibendu
Kumar Nath as well as the writ petitioner were empanelled on 26-02-2024 pursuant to the
same administrative process but only the service of Sibendu Kumar Nath has been
Page No.# 9/13
regularized till date.
10. There is no dispute about the fact that pursuant to a process initiated by the Bank
on the basis of names sponsored by the District Employment Exchange, as many as three
candidates, viz. 1. Sibendu Kumar Nath, 2. Paplu Nath ( i.e. the writ petitioner) and 3.
Babulal Rabidas were empanelled at Sl. No. 1 to 3 respectively. The panel was published
under the signature of Assistant General Manager of SBI, i.e. the respondent No. 4
herein. Pursuant to the empanelment Sri Sibendu Kumar Nath and the writ petitioner
herein, both were temporarily appointed as General Attendent (Sweeper) in the manner
indicated hereinabove. However, although the services of Sibendu Kumar Nath was
subsequently regularized, no order of regularization of services was issued in case of the
writ petitioner.
11. In view of the observations made hereinabove and considering the fact that the
learned counsel for the parties had addressed arguments only with regard to the principle
of parity earlier applied by this Court, it would not be necessary for this Court to go into
the other aspects of the matter, save and except, addressing the aforesaid issue.
12. It may be correct to say that there is a Settlement under which, a temporary
employee in subordinate cadre forming part of the panel was required to be given chance
for being considered for permanent appointment in the Bank against a vacancy which had
arisen up-to December, 1994 and to that extent, Sibendu Kumar Nath would undoubtedly
come within the sweep of such condition contained in the settlement. However, there is
nothing in the settlement which prevents the Bank from regularizing the services of any
other temporary employee, if the claim for regularization in service is otherwise justified
Page No.# 10/13
under the law. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the settlement dated 30-07-
1996 cannot come in the way of consideration of the case of the writ petitioner for
regularization of his services, if he is otherwise entitled to an order of regularization in
service, under the law.
13. That apart, this Court had also taken note of the fact that the services of Sibendu
Kumar Nath was not directly regularized under the settlement dated 30-07-1996 but he
was also made a part of the same process undertaken by the Bank for preparation of the
panel dated 26-02-2004 by considering the candidates sponsored by the Employment
Exchange whereby, Sibendu Kumar Nath was temporarily appointed. It was only
thereafter that the services of the Sibendu Kumar Nath was regularized. The question is,
why such similar treatment was not extended to the writ petitioner who was also included
in the same panel. The issue of parity, if any, has to be understood vis-à-vis the rights of
these two candidates, both of whom were included in the panel for appointment as
General Attendent, in the light of their individual claims as empanelled candidates and not
on the basis of any other extraneous factors as has been sought to be projected by the
Bank. The question is, whether, the present is a case of violation of the fundamental
rights of the writ petitioner guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution, whereby he
has extended a discriminatory treatment under the law by denying him similar treatment
as Sibendu Kumar Nath despite being similarly situated and notwithstanding the
availability of vacancy? The answer to the said question, in the opinion of this Court has
to be in the affirmative.
14. In the case of Jaggo (Supra) relied upon by Mr. Nath, several part time workers
Page No.# 11/13
serving as Safaiwalis and Khalasis, performing essential duties for the CWC over the
extended period of time, had approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal
(CAT) seeking an order for regularization of their services. The learned CAT had, however,
rejected their application, as a result of which, the applicants had approached the High
Court of Judicature at Delhi by filing writ petition which was also dismissed. Not only that,
after the Original Application was dismissed by the CAT, the services of the applicants
were also terminated. Those original applicants had urged before the Court to recognize
their long and continuous service having regard to the nature of work done by them and
the fact that their entry into the service was not illegal. Accepting the plea raised by the
original applicants, the Supreme Court had not only set aside the orders of termination
but had also issued a direction to regularize their services forthwith. The observations
made in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the said judgment would be relevant for the purpose of
this case and therefore, the same are being reproduced here-in-below for ready
reference:-
"26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice
of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles,
it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny
legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish
between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees
in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had
served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for
regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the
judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately
reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not
illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government
departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested
right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's
explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective
application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it
Page No.# 12/13
against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for
government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable
employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods,
especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only
contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to
legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment
practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation,
promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are
meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a
positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the
overall betterment of labour practices in the country."
15. As has been noted hereinabove, the writ petitioner was included in the panel of
General Attendent (Sweeper) published on 26-02-2024 pursuant to a process initiated by
the Bank. He was thereafter, appointed on fulltime basis as Attendent Sweeper on 15-06-
2004 against a permanent vacancy which had arisen due to the demise of the permanent
sweeper, viz. Prem Lal Balmiki. Since then, the writ petitioner has been continuously
serving as Sweeper in the Bank. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner's entry
into service was illegal or through the backdoor. Having regard to the nature of work done
by the petitioner as General Attendent, it is also apparent that the services rendered by
him, even as a temporary employee, was not only of continuous nature but the same
formed a part of the essential services availed by the Bank. In this manner, the writ
petitioner has rendered continuous service for more than 21 years as a temporary
employee. Therefore, independent of the conditions contained in the Settlement, the writ
petitioner has a right to be considered for regularization in service purely on the basis of
merit of his claim as a long serving temporary employee of the Bank.
16. Having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo
(Supra), this Court is of the unhesitant opinion that the respondents are under a legal
Page No.# 13/13
obligation to regularize the services of the petitioner as General Attendent or any other
equivalent post and also to pay full back-wages/ arrear salary, as may be due and payable
to him under the law within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
The writ petition stands allowed.
There would be no order as to cost.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
