Karnataka High Court

Smt Krishna Bai vs The State Bank Of India on 21 November, 2023

Author: N S Sanjay Gowda

Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda

                                         -1-
                                                        NC: 2023:KHC:41726
                                                  WP No. 18238 of 2021




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                   DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

                                      BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
                    WRIT PETITION No. 18238 OF 2021 (S-RES)
            BETWEEN:

                  SMT. KRISHNA BAI
                  W/O LATE NARAYANA RAO
                  AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
                  WORKING AS LUNCH ROOM ATTENDER
                  STATE BANK OF INDIA
                  JAYANAGAR BRANCH
                  11TH MAIN ROAD, 11TH MAIN 'B' CROSS
                  (NEAR SRI RAGHAVENDRA MUTT)
                  JAYANAGAR 5TH BLOCK
                  BANGALORE - 560 041.

                  AND

                  RESIDING AT No. 1339
                  GROUND FLOOR, No.37-B CROSS
Digitally         4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
signed by         BANGALORE - 560 041.
KIRAN
KUMAR R                                                   ...PETITIONER
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF    (BY SRI NARAYANA BHAT M, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA

            AND:

            1.    THE STATE BANK OF INDIA
                  REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
                  HEAD OFFICE, STATE BANK BHAVAN
                  16TH FLOOR, MADAME CAMARODA
                  NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI
                  MAHARASTRA - 400 021.
                              -2-
                                          NC: 2023:KHC:41726
                                       WP No. 18238 of 2021




2.   THE STATE BANK OF INDIA
     REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE-1, NETWORK -1
     (e - SBM HEAD OFFICE BUILDING)
     REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
     GROUND FLOOR, K G ROAD
     BENGALURU - 560 009.

3.   THE BRANCH MANAGER
     STATE BANK OF INDIA
     No.35/18 (OLD No. 702)
     11TH MAIN ROAD, 11TH B MAIN CROSS
     (NEAR SRI RAGHAVENDRA MUTT)
     JAYANAGAR 5TH BLOCK
     BENGALURU - 560 004.

4.   GENERAL MANAGER - HR
     STATE BANK OF INDIA
     DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
     LOFCAL HEAD OFFICE
     MYSORE BANK BUILDING
     K G ROAD
     BENGALURU - 560 009.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI T P MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE TO ALLOT WORK TO THE
PETITIONER AND ETC.,

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

1. The prayer in this writ petition is for a direction

to continue the petitioner to work in the Bank. Other

prayer made is for quashing the order dated 18.11.2021

NC: 2023:KHC:41726

by which the claim for her appointment has been declined.

The last prayer made by the petitioner is to grant all

consequential benefits consequent upon quashing of the

above order.

2. The facts that can be ascertained from the writ

petition is, that the petitioner was appointed as a

Lunchroom Attender on 11.05.1988 and she has been

working in the Bank for the past 35 years. The fact that

the petitioner has been working from the year 1988 is not

in dispute. In fact the Branch Manager had submitted

three proposals dated 17.12.2008, 22.05.2010 and

16.06.2010 (Annexure D) to the Assistant General

Manager requesting that the petitioner be appointed as a

Sweeper - cum - Lunchroom Attender - cum - Peon. This

request was however not acceded to by the Assistant

General Manager. In fact in the said recommendations it is

admitted that the petitioner has been working since 1988

and she was being paid consolidated wages. In the

NC: 2023:KHC:41726

recommendation dated 22.05.2010 it is recommended by

the Branch Manager as follows:

"In this regard, we suggest that while approving scaled wages, we recommend for re- designating her as Sweeper-cum-lunch room attender, so that the ongoing problem of the branch for non-availability of sweeper is overcome and her services are effectively utilized."

3. Similarly in the recommendation dated

16.06.2010 it has been stated as follows:

"In our earlier letter dated 05.06.2010, we have brought to your kind notice the problems faced by the undersigned and the staff without having a permanent sweeper for the branch. Branch being in Metro centre, upkeep of the premises is a basic necessity. The Water logging in the Basement during the rainy season requires proper cleaning and removing of water on daily basis. We are ashamed to convince the customer when they comment on the upkeep in the basement during locker operations.

NC: 2023:KHC:41726

Your kind selves were made aware of the problems during your structured visit. The Deputy General Manager, during his recent visit to the Branch also opined that the Branch should focus on upkeep on a concurrent basis. In view of the aforesaid facts, Kindly consider Smt. Krishna Bai appointment on 1/3rd scales wages at the earliest so that we can extract Sweeper cum Lunch room attender cum peon work from her. She is honest, sincere, dependable and has established undoubted integrity by serving the bank through commitment for the past 20 years."

4. These recommendations, by themselves, clearly

indicate that the petitioner has been an honest, sincere,

dependable employee of the Bank for more than 30 years

and this has prompted the Manager to recommend that

she be designated as a Sweeper - cum - Lunchroom

Attender - cum - Peon. Though the petitioner would not

have a right of regularization or right to be appointed by

virtue of her long service, she would nevertheless have to

NC: 2023:KHC:41726

be compensated for the service of 33 years that she has

rendered to the Bank.

5. The Supreme Court in a case relating to the

absorption of workers (Ranbir Singh vs. SK Roy,

Chairman, Life Insurance Corp. of India & Anr. M.A.

No. 1150/2019 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.

1921/2017 in Civil Appeal No. 6950/2009) has stated

as follows:

"75. The dispute is now of an antiquity tracing back to nearly four decades. Finality has to be wrung down on the dispute to avoid uncertainty and more litigation. Nearly thirty-one years have elapsed since 1991. We have come to the conclusion that the claims of those workers who are duly found upon verification to meet the threshold conditions of eligibility should be resolved by the award of monetary compensation in lieu of absorption, and in full and final settlement of all claims and demands. Thus, this Court directs the following:

(i) A fresh verification of the claims of workers who claim to have been employed for at least 70 days in Class IV posts over a period of three years or 85 days

NC: 2023:KHC:41726

in Class III posts over a period of two years shall be carried out;

(ii) The verification shall be confined to persons who were working between 20 May 1985 and 4 March 1991;

(iii) All persons who are found to be eligible on the above norm shall be entitled to compensation computed at the rate of Rs.50,000 for every year of service or part thereof. The payment of compensation at the above rate shall be in lieu of reinstatement, and in full and final settlement of all claims and demands of the workers in lieu of regularisation or absorption and notwithstanding the directions issued by this Court in TN Terminated Employees Association (supra);

(iv) In carrying out the process of verification, the Committee appointed by this Court shall not be confined to the certified list before the CGIT and shall consider the claims of all workers who were engaged between 20 May 1985 and 4 March 1991;

(v) For the purpose of verification, LIC shall make available all the records at the Divisional level to the Committee appointed by this Court;

(vi) It will be open to the workers concerned or, as the case may be, the Unions and Associations representing them, to make available such documentary material in their possession for the purpose of verification;

NC: 2023:KHC:41726

(vii) The process of verification shall be carried out independently without regard to the Dogra Report, which is held to be flawed;

(viii) The payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement shall be effected by LIC within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the report of verification by the Committee; and

(ix) The task of verification shall be carried out by a Committee consisting of:

(a) Mr Justice PKS Baghel, former Judge of the Allahabad High Court; and

(b) Shri Rajiv Sharma, former District Judge and member of the UPHJS.

LIC shall provide all logistical assistance to the Committee and bear all expenses, including secretarial expenses, travel and incidental expenses, as well as the fees payable to the members of the Committee. Justice PKS Baghel shall fix the terms of remuneration payable to the members of the Committee."

6. In this regard, one of the directions issued by

the Supreme Court in the said judgment is as follows:

"(iii) All persons who are found to be eligible on the above norm shall be entitled to

NC: 2023:KHC:41726

compensation computed at the rate of Rs.50,000/- for every year of service or part thereof. The payment of compensation at the above rate shall be in lieu of reinstatement, and in full and final settlement of all claims and demands of the workers in lieu of regularization or absorption and notwithstanding the directions issued by this Court in TN Terminated Employees Association (supra):"

7. Having regard to the fact that the Supreme

Court, in a case relating to the claims of the workers for

absorption who had been litigating for more than 30 years,

has held that the persons who are found to be eligible for

appointment would be entitled for compensation computed

at the rate of Rs.50,000/- for every year of service, the

same principle would have to be followed in this case.

8. It is to be stated here that as per the three

proposals made by the Branch Manager, the eligibility of

the petitioner was not in doubt and since the Branch

Manager in all the three proposals, recommended that she

- 10 -