Long-standing service without a formal appointment does not deny employees the right to regularization; discriminatory treatment of similarly situated employees violates principles of equity and fair employment.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following prayer:

a. To Issue writ in the nature of mandamus direct the respondents no.1 to 4 to regularize the service of the petitioner to his posts held by him in their 4^th respondent banks from the date of their initiation appointment and to pay all monetary benefits by allowing this writ petition.

b. To Issue any other orders, directions as deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Shivaraj Mudhol for the petitioner, learned HCGP Smt.Girija Hiremath for the respondent Nos.2 and 3-State, the learned counsel Sri.P.R.Bentur appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel Sri.K.H.Bagi appearing for respondent No.4.

3. The petitioner is initially employed by the Primary Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank. The petitioner is discharging his duties in respondent No.4-Bank which come under the supervision of the respondent No.1-Common Cadre Committee.

4. The petitioner was employed by the respondent No.4-Bank on 07.09.1995. The petitioner is said to be working even as on date in the respondent No.4-Bank as clerk/junior assistant on daily wages. The petitioner registers his claim for regularisation of his services by submitting a representation to the respondent No.4-Bank. It transpires that the respective Banks on the strength of the service rendered by the present petitioner along with other petitioners recommended their cases for regularisation by communication to the first respondent. The recommendation from one of the respondent Banks to the Common Cadre Committee is as follows:

5. To the said document, the entry and subsistence of services of this petitioner along with other petitioners are also indicated. Identical representations were submitted by several of the employees and those employers to whom the said employees had submitted their representations also had recommendations in their favour made to the Common Cadre Committee, the first respondent. Those representations did merit consideration at the hands of the Common Cadre Committee and ultimately approved by the Government by directing regularisation of their services. The communication and the order read as follows:

6. It was concerning three employees who had entered service or joined services in those respective Banks on 20.02.2001, on 07.10.2002 and on 24.06.2002. Their services had not yet been completed to the tune which the Apex Court had directed in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi , (2006) 4 SCC 1. Notwithstanding the same, those services of those employees come to be regularised, while the same treatment is not meted out to this petitioner along with other petitioners. Therefore this petitioner is before the Court seeking a direction by chance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his case for regularisation as was considered by the Common Cadre Committee and approved by the Competent Authority, as is found in the order quoted supra. It is therefore, he is at the doors of this Court.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the respondents has practised invidious discrimination in ordering regularisation of its employees as one set of similarly placed employees have had the benefit of regularisation and the other set, the petitioner herein is left out. Therefore the learned counsel would seek parity in treatment towards the regularisation of their cases by the hands of the respondent-State.

8. The learned HCGP, appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 would vehemently refute the submissions in contending that these employees