Tripura High Court
Sri Sajal Paul And 19 Ors vs Punjab National Bank And 3 Ors on 17 May, 2023
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.1040 of 2022
Sri Sajal Paul and 19 Ors.
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Punjab National Bank and 3 Ors.
....Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate
Mr. K. Nath, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Roy Barman, Advocate
Date of hearing and
delivery of
judgment & order : 17/05/2023
Whether fit for reporting : No
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Judgment and Order (Oral)
Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K.
Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A.
Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Bank.
2. By means of filing the present writ petition, the petitioners have
prayed for regularization of their services.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been rendering
service to the Bank-respondents as "Badli Sweepers" for the last several
years, but, till today their services have not been considered for
regularization. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of
filing the present writ petition claiming regularization of their services as
Part-time Sweepers.
4. Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel for the respondents-Bank would
contend that the services of the petitioners are not required at all. They
are not engaged on regular basis. They render their services on the days
as and when required. After amalgamation of United Bank of India and
Punjab National Bank, the authorities concerned after assigning the
financial constraints of the bank felt it necessary that the services of such
huge number of "Badli Sweepers" are not required at all.
6. At the very outset, Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that this writ petition is well covered by the
judgment of this Court dated 19.04.2023 passed in WP(C) No.708 of
2021 titled as Sri Surajit Das & 38 Ors vs. The Union of India & 2 Ors.
This proposition has not been opposed by learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners.
7. The relevant portion of the said judgment may be reproduced here-
in-below:
"7. It is settled proposition of law that regularization of
services of an employee is not a matter of right, but, it is a right
to be considered. The authorities concerned are the best
persons to decide whether the services of the present petitioners
are at all required or not considering their financial position.
8. Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the bank
emphatically submits that the bank has been suffering from
serious financial constraints and there is no scheme prevailing
in the bank to regularize the „Badly Sweepers‟.
9. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to facts of the
case as well as the submission of learned counsel appearing for
the parties. It appears that the petitioners have been rendering
their services as „Badly Sweepers‟, though, not regularly, but,
for a long period of time."
8. In the present case, it has been brought to the notice of this Court
by Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners
that the Bank has a policy dated 2nd July, 2010 relating to recruitment and
posting of Part-time/Full-time Sweepers in the Bank. This fact was not
brought to notice of this Court in the case of Sri Surajit Das(supra).
Since, there is a specific policy as stated above, the Bank-respondents
should make an endeavour to consider the engagement of the petitioners
as per the policy decision dated 2nd July, 2010 relating to recruitment and
posting of Part-time/Full-time Sweepers in the Bank.
The entire process for consideration of the recruitment of the
petitioners may be completed within 3(three) months.
With the above observation and directions, the instant writ petition
stands disposed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.
JUDGE
Snigdha
