Denial of regularization to a long-serving temporary employee compared to similarly situated employees constitutes discrimination, violating constitutional rights.

JUDGMENT :

SUMAN SHYAM, J.

Heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. This is the second occasion when this Court has been called upon to adjudicate the same issues involved in this writ petition. The writ petitioner herein, who was temporarily engaged as General Attendant (Sweeper) under the respondent Bank on 15-06-2004, having rendered more than 21 years of continuous service is before this Court, seeking a direction for payment of arrear salary and also an order for regularizing his services. This writ petition was earlier allowed by this Court by judgment and order dated 16-06-2023. The respondents as appellants had, however, preferred W.A. No. 369/2023 assailing the judgment and order dated 16-06-2023, inter alia, on the grounds that the prayer of the writ petitioner had been allowed by drawing parity with another employee, viz. Sibendu Kumar Nath, whose service was regularized by the Bank although there was no pleading in the writ petition to that effect. By taking note of such submissions made by the learned counsel for the Bank, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court had passed order dated 03-10-2023 disposing of W.A. No. 369/2023 by setting aside the judgment and order dated 16-06-2023 and remanding the matter to be decided afresh by the Single Bench after granting liberty to the parties to file additional pleadings.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the observations made in the judgment and order dated 16-06-2023 and also having regard to the order that is proposed to be passed in the present proceeding, this Court is of the opinion that although the earlier judgment of this Court, disposing of the present writ petition, has been set-aside by the Division Bench, yet, it would be necessary to reproduce the judgment and order dated 16-06-2023 here-in-below for ready reference:

“Heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. L. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the Bank.

The petitioners case, briefly stated, is that pursuant to a selection process based on interview, the petitioner was empanelled at Sl. No. 2 in the panel of Gr-IV employees who are required to be employed under the State Bank of India (SBI), on temporary basis, as General Attendant (Sweeper) in the district of Cachar. There were all together three candidates whose names figured in the panel notified on 26-02-2004 by the Assistant General Manager, SBI, Regional Office, Silchar and the petitioner’s name appears in Sl. No. 2 of the panel. Pursuant to the preparation of the panel, the petitioner was allowed to join as General Attendant in the SBI, Silchar Bazar Branch w.e.f. 15-06-2004 on the basis of an order of appointment dated 16-06-2004 issued by the Branch Manager. Since then, the petitioner has been continuously serving as General Attendant. As a matter of fact, at the instance of the respondent authorities a Provident Fund (PF) account of the petitioner was also created by the Provident Fund Pension & Gratuity Department of the SBI.

Mr. Nath submits that the petitioner has been continuously serving in the post of General Attendant on temporary basis since the year 2004. Notwithstanding the same and despite the fact that the persons above him in the panel, viz. Sri Sibendu Kum