Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA, J
Kamla Damor (Divorcee), - Appellant
Versus
State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 335/2016
Decided On : 03-01-2025
(A) Circular No. Karmik/25/2010-11 - Temporary employment - The petitioner sought regular appointment as ‘Safai Karamchari’ with benefits but was denied based on her temporary status and failure to meet recruitment criteria. The court found disputed facts and unreasonable delay in her petition. (Paras 2.1, 4.1, 5, 10)
(B) Limitation - The court ruled that delay in filing the petition, despite representations, does not extend the limitation period. The petitioner had acquiesced to the rejection of her claim. (Paras 8, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was employed temporarily since 2002, and her request for a regular position and 1/3rd salary was denied due to her temporary employment status and procedural violations by the bank.
Findings of Court:
The court noted the existence of disputed facts and the unreasonable delay in filing the petition, concluding that the petitioner had no grounds to reopen her claim.
Issues: The court addressed whether the petitioner was entitled to 1/3rd salary and the implications of her delay in filing the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the petitioner’s temporary employment status and the delay in her claim barred her from relief under the relevant circulars.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Order :
1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint her on regular basis as ‘Safai Karamchari’ with all consequential benefits.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts for the purpose of adjudication of the writ petition are as follows:-
2.1. The petitioner was initially employed as a Safai Karamchari at the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Sector 11, Udaipur, since 2002. She was later transferred to the RNT Medical College Branch, Udaipur, on 01.09.2010, on a temporary basis, receiving a fixed monthly remuneration of Rs. 1440. Since then, she has been continuously working without any complaints.
2.2. During the Employees Coordination Committee meeting on 27.07.2011, the petitioner’s name was recommended for appointment on 1/3rd salary, as per Circular No. Karmik/25/2010-11 dated 25.05.2010, which entitles employees appointed on a fixed salary after 01.05.2010 to 1/3rd salary. The matter was submitted for approval and the petitioner’s pay was to be fixed as a special case from 01.02.2012.
2.3. The petitioner submitted a representation on 03.06.2013 to the Assistant Manager General-II, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Regional Office, Udaipur, explaining her continuous work as a Safai Karamchari since 2002 and requesting her appointment on 1/3rd salary, as per the 9th bilateral agreement between the Indian Bank Union and Employees' Union. However, she received no response. The Branch Manager, S.B.B.J. RNT Medical College Branch, Udaipur, recognizing the petitioner’s satisfactory service, recommended granting her 1/3rd salary and the re-fixation of her pay through communications dated 03.06.2013 and 12.07.2013 to the Assistant Manager General-II, Regional Office, Udaipur.
2.4. As the petitioner received no response, she submitted another representation on 08.11.2014 to the Deputy Manager General, S.B.B.J., Divisional Office, Udaipur, reiterating her request for 1/3rd salary. However, the petitioner was shocked to receive an order dated 09.01.2015, informing her that her pay was not fixed on 1/3rd salary. Additionally, she was refused permission to mark her attendance and was ultimately removed from the position based on verbal orders. As a result, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. First and foremost, reference may be had to the preliminary objections taken in the reply filed by the bank which reads as under:-
4.1 According to the circular dated 17.07.2010, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits claimed because she was employed temporarily starting 04.09.2010. The circular stipulates that employees recruited on or after 01.05.2010 under part-time scale are eligible for a minimum of 1/3rd wages. However, the petitioner never participated in the recruitment process, nor was she eligible for 1/3rd wages as per the settlement rules. Additionally, the petitioner's case was referred to the head office for guidance, but it was correctly rejected via a letter dated 23.01.2012, as it did not meet the requirements of the circular dated 25.05.2010.
4.2 Moreover, the petitioner was given lump sum payments by the RNT Medical Branch, Udaipur, without obtaining written permission from the competent authority, thus violating the bank’s instructions. A disciplinary inquiry has been initiated against the bank employees involved in these actions. Since the petitioner has concealed these vital facts, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. Having perused the contents of the petition and after going through the appended material therewith vis-a-vis the corresponding stand taken in the reply, I am of the view that there are disputed question of facts involved in the present case.
6. While on one hand, petitioner claims that no doubt her services were dispensed with some time in the month of January, 2012 which is the conceded position by
Temporary employees lack vested rights to claim benefits under circulars if they do not meet recruitment criteria and delay in claims can bar relief.
Point of law: Interview of appointment - Merely because appellant was called for interview, it will not confer any right on him to be selected and appointed
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' and the applicability of the Circular to part-time employees working for less than four hours.
The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' entitles temporary employees performing similar duties to receive at least the minimum pay of regular employees.
The appointment of another individual with similar circumstances does not warrant reconsideration of a petitioner's case if the petitioner's qualifications do not meet the requisite standards.
An employee's continuous service is recognized once a termination is set aside, impacting their eligibility for regularization despite initial appointment irregularities.
Once a judicial order regarding service benefits and pay fixation attains finality, the state is bound to implement it in its entirety. Authorities cannot circumvent such mandates through internal de....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
