JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant Bank and its functionaries.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

In the year 1986 a panel for appointment of Budlee Sepoys was prepared by the appellant-Bank for engagement on temporary basis (strictly on no work no pay) in the leave vacancies and to absorb them in the Bank as and when regular vacancies arise. The scheme for deployment/absorption was formulated on 24.2.1988 for Budlee sepoys who appear on center-wise approved panels and who had completed 240 Budlee working days of service as on 1.2.1988 in a block of 12 months or a calendar year. It was stipulated in the scheme that on absorption Budlee Sepoys would be continued on the approved panels and would be deployed on leave vacancy on need basis only and would be absorbed in permanent vacancies that may arise in future. 3. The aforesaid scheme clearly stated that absorption/regularization of Budlee Sepoys would be subject to two conditions:

(1) completion of 240 days in a block year of 12 months or a calendar year:

(2)