Suresh P vs Kerala Gramin Bank
2026 Latest Caselaw 2104 Ker

Kerala High Court

Suresh P vs Kerala Gramin Bank on 26 February, 2026

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

                                                        2026:KER:17116

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

   THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1947

                       WP(C) NO. 19663 OF 2024

PETITIONER:

          SURESH P.
          AGED 56 YEARS,
          S/O.THUPRANKUTTY,
          SWEEPER CUM MESSENGER,
          KERALA GRAMIN BANK,
          VALIYORA BRANCH, PUTHANANGADI,
          MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
          RESIDING AT PAROLE,
          PALASSERI HOUSE,
          CHETTIPADI VIA KODAKKAD P.O.,
          MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676319

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.C.A.CHACKO
          SMT.C.M.CHARISMA



RESPONDENTS:

    1     KERALA GRAMIN BANK
          HEAD OFFICE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
          REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

    2     THE CHAIRMAN
          KERALA GRAMIN BANK, HEAD OFFICE,
          MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505

    3     THE CHIEF MANAGER (HR WING)
          KERALA GRAMIN BANK, HEAD OFFICE,
          MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
                                             2026:KER:17116
W.P.(C) No.19663/2024
                            :2:


    4      THE BRANCH MANAGER
           KERALA GRAMIN BANK, VALIYORA BRANCH,
           PUTHANANGADI ROAD, VALIYORA,
           MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676304

           BY ADV.
           SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE, STANDING COUNSEL

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 08.01.2026, THE COURT ON 26.02.2026 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                2026:KER:17116
W.P.(C) No.19663/2024
                                      :3:




                          N. NAGARESH, J.

         `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                     W.P.(C) No.19663 of 2024

          `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
            Dated this the 26th day of February, 2026


                            JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~

The petitioner, who is a physically

challenged person suffering from 40% vision impairment, has

approached this Court seeking to direct the respondents to

frame a Scheme and consider the claim of the petitioner for

regularisation of service and to direct the respondents to

permit the petitioner to work on all working days in a month

without break.

2. The petitioner is working as Sweeper-cum-

Messenger under the 1st respondent-Kerala Gramin Bank.

The petitioner states that he was originally appointed on 2026:KER:17116

06.11.2000 after a due selection process through

Employment Exchange. From the date of appointment, he

has been engaged on daily wage basis for 15 days every

month continuously. This arrangement is continuing for the

past 22 years. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has been

transferred from one Branch to another.

3. The petitioner states that he is now aged 56

years and he is the only disabled person serving the Bank

continuously from the year 2000 onwards. The Bank has

been making payment to his Provident Fund account also.

4. Though the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the

judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v.

Umadevi and others [(2006) 4 SCC 1], had directed to

formulate a Scheme for regularisation of workers, the

respondents have not taken any steps in that regard till date.

The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation before the

Chief Minister. The representation was forwarded to the

State Level Bankers Committee, who in turn forwarded the 2026:KER:17116

same to the 1st respondent. In spite of that, the petitioner's

service is not regularised. The petitioner has therefore

approached this Court.

5. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the

Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v.

K. Murukan [2025 KHC 132] and argued that whether an

appointment is labelled as provisional or temporary, such

appointment can be regularised if it is made after following

the prescribed procedure. The counsel for the petitioner also

relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaggo v.

Union of India and others [(2024) SCC OnLine SC 3826]

and in Umadevi (supra) to urge that the petitioner has a right

to be considered for regularisation.

6. Standing Counsel appeared on behalf of the

respondents and opposed the writ petition. The respondents

submitted that the petitioner was originally appointed in the

South Malabar Gramin Bank which was later merged with the

Kerala Gramin Bank in the year 2013. The South Malabar 2026:KER:17116

Gramin Bank issued Ext.R1(a) notification for regularisation

of services of its adhoc employees. 111 Full Time

Messenger posts and one post of Driver-cum-Messenger

were set apart to be filled up by regularisation. Three posts

were reserved for physically handicapped.

7. About 373 employees submitted

applications and the South Malabar Gramin Bank prepared a

select list of 112 candidates. The select list was challenged

in W.P.(C) No.15027/2008 and connected cases. This Court

held that the select list is unsustainable and that the posts

can be filled up through direct recruitment only. The

employees as well as the Bank challenged the judgment of

the learned Single Judge filing writ appeals before the

Division Bench. The Division Bench set aside Ext.R1(d)

judgment and the Bank was directed to examine whether

those who are included in the select list are eligible for

regularisation in the light of the judgment in Umadevi (supra).

2026:KER:17116

8. The Bank, after examining the matter,

decided to accept the select list. The said decision was

subjected to challenge in W.P.(C) No.26042/2010 and

connected cases. A learned Single Judge quashed the

decision of the Bank as per Ext.R1(f) judgment. The Division

Bench, as per Ext.R1(g) judgment, found that the select list of

112 persons prepared by the Bank is not improper. Ext.R1(f)

judgment was therefore set aside. The petitioner's name was

not included in the select list. The writ petition is therefore

without any merit and is liable to be set aside.

9. The Standing Counsel representing the

respondents relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar and others v.

State of Maharashtra and others (SLA(C) No.2543/2023)

and argued that working for a long period on a contractual

basis does not create a vested right to regularisation. The

Standing Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Union of India and others v. Ilmo Devi and 2026:KER:17116

another [(2021) 20 SCC 290] and argued that part time

employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are

not working against any sanctioned post and there cannot be

any permanent continuance of part time temporary

employees.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the

respondents.

11. The petitioner was originally appointed in

the South Malabar Gramin Bank on 06.11.2000. The

petitioner is a visually impaired person and the selection was

through the Employment Exchange. The petitioner has been

working ever since. However, the petitioner's service was

availed by the Bank only for 15 days every month. The claim

of the petitioner is that he has worked for 23 years and

therefore his service is liable to be regularised in terms of the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Umadevi (supra),

after framing a Scheme for regularisation.

2026:KER:17116

12. In fact, the Bank had framed a Scheme for

regularisation and had issued Ext.R1(a) notification inviting

applications from daily wage workers. 111 Full Time

Messenger posts and one post of Driver-cum-Messenger

were sought to be filled up by regularisation. In fact, three

posts were reserved for physically handicapped candidates.

Unfortunately, the petitioner was not selected for

regularisation. Ext.R1(c) is the select list.

13. The select list was subjected to challenge

before this Court in W.P.(C) No.15027/2008 and connected

cases and the decision of the Bank to regularise the 112

candidates included in Ext.R1(c) was challenged in W.P.(C)

No.26042/2010 and connected cases. Writ appeals were

filed against the common judgment. A Division Bench of this

Court upheld the selection made by the Bank.

14. It is to be noted that the said selection was

finalised in the year 2015. In effect, the petitioner is

challenging the list in the year 2024. The Standing Counsel 2026:KER:17116

for the Bank submits that in spite of non-selection, the Bank

has permitted the petitioner to continue in service with the

same terms.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I

find no merit in the writ petition. Regularisation is a one time

measure. The writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/24.02.2026 2026:KER:17116

APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 19663 OF 2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE TOWN EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, TIRUR.

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR SELECTION ISSUED BY THE MANAGER, SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, KIZHISSERI BRANCH DATED 11.09.2000.

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT SURGEON, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, MANJERI. Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE UNIQUE DISABILITY ID, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ISSUED BY THE DMO OFFICE, MALAPPURAM.

Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA DATED 29.06.2021.

Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 12.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.

Exhibit P7              TRUE   COPY  OF    COMMUNICATION   DATED
                        15/10/2022    OF    ASSISTANT    GENERAL
                        MANAGER, KERALA GRAMIN BANK

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

Exhibit-R(1)(a)         TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 27-3-
                        2008 ISSUED BY THE ERSTWHILE SOUTH
                        MALABAR GRAMIN BANK.
Exhibit-R(1)(b)         TRUE COPY OF LIST OF 373 CANDIDATES
                        WHO HAVE APPLIED IN PURSUANCE TO
                        EXHIBIT-R(1)(A) NOTIFICATION.
Exhibit-R(1)(c)         TRUE COPY OF THE SELECT LIST OF 112

CANDIDATES WHO HAVE BEEN SELECTED IN PURSUANCE TO EXHIBIT R(1)(A) NOTIFICATION Exhibit-R(1)(d) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11-8-2009 IN W.P.(C) 15027/2008 AND CONNECTED 2026:KER:17116

CASES OF THE HON'BLE COURT.

Exhibit-R(1)(e) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 29-1-2010 IN WA NO.2122/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Exhibit-R(1)(f) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20-5-

2015 IN W.P.(C) 26042/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. Exhibit-R(1)(g) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 4-12-2015 IN W.A NO.1539/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Exhibit-R(1)(h)         TRUE COPY OF CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY
                        THE   KERALA   GRAMIN   BANK  TEMPORARY
                        EMPLOYEES     ASSOCIATION,     AS    ID

NO.15/2022, BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM Exhibit-R(1)(i) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22-12-

2022 IN W.P.(C)NO.33487/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. Exhibit-R(1)(j) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 8-1-2024 IN W.A.NO.423/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.