Page No.# 1/6 vs Paplu Nath
2025 Latest Caselaw 8195 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/6 vs Paplu Nath on 31 October, 2025

                                                             Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010174072025




                                                       2025:GAU-AS:14790

                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                           Case No. : WA/333/2025

         THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.
         REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HAVING ITS CENTRAL OFFICE AT
         STATE BANK OF INDIA BHAVAN, MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI 400021

         2: ZONAL MANAGER
          STATE BANK OF INDIA
          ZONAL OFFICE
          BHANGAGARH
          GUWAHATI-781006.

         3: THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER ADMN.
          STATE BANK OF INDIA
         ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
          BHANGAGARH
          GUWAHATI-781006.

         4: THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
          STATE BANK OF INDIA
          REGIONAL OFFICE
          REGION-IV
          SILCHAR
          CACHAR-788001.

         5: BRANCH MANAGER
          STATE BANK OF INDIA
          SILCHAR BAZAR BRANCH
          SILCHAR
          P.O- SILCHAR
          CACHAR
         ASSAM-788001

         VERSUS

         PAPLU NATH
                                                                                Page No.# 2/6

              S/O LATE PRASANTA KUMAR NATH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAROMONI,
              P.O. - BAROMONI, DISTRICT - CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN - 788121



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR MAHARSHI SARMA, MR M SARMA

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A BHATTACHARJEE, MAUSAM NATH




                                          BEFORE


           HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
               HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY



                                          ORDER

31-10-2025 (Arun Dev Choudhury, J)

1. Heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. D. L. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.1040/2015, whereby the appellants were directed to regularise the service of the respondent as General Attendant or any other equivalent post and also to release full back wages and arrear salary as applicable.

3. The relevant facts are that the respondent was initially engaged as a Page No.# 3/6

Canteen Boy at the Narsingpur Branch of State Bank of India (SBI) in September 1999 for a period of three years, pursuant to the approval of the Local Implementation Committee. Later, the Bank conducted an interview through the employment exchange for the temporary engagement of General Attendant (Sweepers). The respondent participated in the said interview, ranked 2nd in order of merit, and was accordingly engaged temporarily. Since then, he has rendered more than 21 years of uninterrupted service performing perennial duties in the bank.

4. Another person, namely, Sibendu Kumar Nath, along with the respondent, was empanelled at Sl. No. 1. It is an admitted fact that the respondent was, though appointed temporarily, however, on a full-time basis, in place of one Prem Lal Balmiki, who expired on 02.12.2003. He was paid a salary that included Basic Pay, Dearness Allowance, and House Rent Allowance. Said Sibendu Kr. Nath, who was empanelled at Sl. 1, was subsequently regularised as a General Attendant.

5. Earlier, when the respondent filed the writ petition seeking his regularisation, the learned Single Bench allowed it. However, the same was challenged by the bank in WA No. 369/2023.

6. A Co-ordinate Bench, under its order dated 16.06.2023, remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge, primarily to reconsider the same on the principle of parity earlier applied by the learned Single Judge.

7. On remand, the learned counsels for the parties had addressed the arguments only with regard to the principle of parity earlier applied by the learned Single Judge.

8. The learned Single Judge, after affording liberty to place additional pleadings, again held by the impugned judgment and order dated 19.06.2025, that Page No.# 4/6

the respondent, having rendered 21 years of continuous service and standing on parity with Sibendu Kr. Nath was entitled to similar relief. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.

9. The learned Sr. counsel for the appellant bank contends that the respondent's engagement was purely temporary and de hors the recruitment rules; that the regularisation would often offend Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India; and the determination made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006 4 SCC 1) bars such directions. It is further contended that the regularisation of Sibendu Kr. Nath was within the scope of the terms and conditions contained in the settlement dated 30.07.1996, entered into by and between SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation. Therefore, there is no parity between Sibendu Kr. Nath and the respondent for the purpose of claiming the right of regularisation in service.

10. While allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge placed reliance on Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Ors. [ (2023) SCC Online SC 3826] and further concluded that even if the respondent is not covered under the settlement, there is nothing in the settlement that prevents the bank from regularising the service of any other temporary employee, if the claim of regularisation in service is otherwise justified under law.

11. We have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials on record.

12. The law on regularisation is well settled. In Uma Devi, the constitution bench held that irregular or illegal appointments made contrary to recruitment rules cannot be regularised merely by reason of long service, however, in the State of Karnataka Vs. M. L. Kesari and Ors. [(2010) 9 SCC 247] it was clarified that where the appointment was irregular, not illegal, and the employee has served Page No.# 5/6

continuously for over 10 years against a sanctioned or duly recognised post, the regularisation may be considered as a one-time measure.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court's approach to this issue has further evolved in recent years through the judgment in Dharam Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.[ 2025 INSC 998], where it was held that when a public institution depends, day after day, on the same hands to perform a permanent task, equity demands that those tasks are placed on a sanctioned post and those workers are treated with fairness and dignity. The Hon'ble Apex Court further cautioned that a generic plea of financial constraints cannot justify continued ad-hocism, emphasising that the State cannot balance its budget on the back of daily wage workers.

14. Again in Shripal and Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad [2025 INSC 144], it was held that the landmark judgment of Uma Devi, cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagement persisting for years. The Court recognised that, where employees have rendered long, continuous service in perennial work, the temporary or daily-wage nature of the work cannot defeat their substantive right to fair treatment.

15. It is by now well settled that the selective regularisation of similarly placed employees without a rational basis violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Equity and constitutional fairness compel parity, where the employer itself has regularised others in identical circumstances.

16. Applying the principles above, it is evident that the respondent's engagement, though termed temporary, was made through a recognised selection process involving employment exchange and has continued to serve uninterruptedly for over 21 years. Admittedly, work performed is permanent and recurring in nature and engagement was made on full-time basis in place of a Page No.# 6/6

permanent employment that had expired on 02.12.2003.

17. The work performed is thus permanent and recurring. It is not the case of the appellant bank that the respondent was engaged in any project or non- perennial work; therefore, the parity pleaded with Sibendu Kr. Nath cannot be disputed, though the mode of regularisation of said Sibendu Kr. Nath was based on a settlement.

18. This Court cannot ignore the humane and welfare-oriented dictum of the recent decisions as recorded hereinabove. We cannot overlook the settled proposition of law that the public employer must not perpetuate insecurity among low-paid staff engaged in permanent work; that fairness demands stability and dignity of labour. This approach not only confirms constitutional discipline but also ensures that equality in employment operates both ways --to prevent illegal back- door entry and to curb long-term exploitation under the guise of temporality against the perennial and the work of a permanent nature.

19. Consequently, for the reasons recorded herein above, this Court finds no error in the impugned judgment and order dated 19.06.2025. The learned Single judge has rightly directed the regularisation of the respondent's service and consequential relief. The appeal, therefore, fails.

20. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to cost.

                               JUDGE                        CHIEF JUSTICE




Comparing Assistant