Ashwani Kumar vs Bank Of Baroda And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 8103 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ashwani Kumar vs Bank Of Baroda And Another on 18 April, 2024

                                                                                        2024:PHHC:051987
              122
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                                  AT CHANDIGARH

                                                                CWP-3194-2024
                                                                Date of Decision: 18.04.2024


              ASHWANI KUMAR                                                         ...Petitioner
                                                             Versus
              BANK OF BARODA AND ANR                                               ...Respondents

              CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
              Present:-                Mr. Satvir Singh, Advocate for
                                       Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh, Advocate
                                       for the petitioner.

                                       Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate with
                                       Mr. Tejinder Singh, Advocate
                                       for the respondents.

                                             *****

              JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of

Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to appoint him on

regular basis or in alternative allow him to continue in service as Sub-Staff

and is further seeking setting aside of order dated 26.10.2023(Annexure P-9)

whereby his claim has been declined.

2. The petitioner joined Dena Bank in 2013 on temporary basis as

Sub-Staff. He worked on the said post till 2022. Dena Bank has

amalgamated with Bank of Baroda. The respondents have discontinued his

services.

3. The respondent-Bank in reply to legal notice has stated that the

petitioner himself discontinued coming to bank since 11.10.2022. On being

asked, the petitioner failed to point out appointment letter and conceded that

authenticity of this order/judgment.

he was appointed only on temporary basis, however, he claims that he had

worked from 2013 to 2022. Thus, he should be permitted to continue in view

of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hargurpartap Singh V/s

State of Punjab 2007 (13) SCC 292.

4. Per contra Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate submits that bank as a

matter of policy, makes appointment on regular basis. The petitioner was

never appointed through regular process. He was working on temporary

basis and w.e.f. April' 2020 was getting pay on daily basis.

5. From the perusal of record, it comes out that petitioner

concededly had worked with respondent-Bank from 2013 to 2022. The

respondent-Bank is claiming that petitioner himself w.e.f. 11.10.2022

discontinued to work. The petitioner is ready to work. The petitioner was not

appointed against a regular or sanctioned post. He was further appointed,

without following regular process. Thus, he has no fundamental or vested

right to claim continuation or regularization. However, considering the fact

that respondent-Bank in reply to legal notice has claimed that petitioner

himself discontinued to work w.e.f. 11.10.2022, the respondent-Bank is

directed to consider case of petitioner sympathetically. The observation of

this Court may not be treated as a right of petitioner to seek appointment.

6. Disposed of in above terms.

                                                                         (JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
              18.04.2024                                                      JUDGE
              himanshu

                                       Whether speaking/reasoned            Yes/No

                                       Whether reportable                   Yes/No







authenticity of this order/judgment.