Temporary or part-time employees cannot claim regularization merely based on length of service without sanctioned posts, and must seek remedies through the designated Industrial Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. Since common question of facts and law are involved in all the above-mentioned Writ Petitions, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, this Court felt it apposite to deal the W.P.(C) No.1276 of 2014 as the leading case for proper adjudication of all these cases.

2. The Petitioners, in W.P.(C) No.1276 of 2014, have sought a direction from this Court to the Opposite Party Nos.2/ National Bank of Agriculture and Rural(NABARD), Mumbai, Opposite Party No.5/Chairman, Orissa Gramya Bank, Bhubaneswar, and Opposite Party No.6/ Regional Manager, Orissa Gramya Bank, Regional Office, Dhenkanal to regularize their services in the posts they presently hold as part-time Messenger/ Data Entry Operator from the date of their engagement. They, further, make a prayer to re-employ them as per Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the I.D. Act” for brevity) in the event of their retrenchment pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.01.2014 issued by the Opposite Party No.5/ Bank inviting applications for appointment of Office Attendant (Multipurpose) in group “C” Cadre.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

3. Facts culminating in filing of the present Writ Petition are that:

(i) The Petitioners, engaged by the Opposite Party No.5/ Bank as Messengers/ Data Entry Operators on temporary/part time basis, are working under the Opposite Party Nos.5 and 6 in different branches of the Opposite Party No.5. The nature of work performed by this category of workers are of regular office attendants starting from unlocking the premises in the morning, cleaning, bringing cash from the strong room, movement of registers, sealing on the slips, bundling of slips, assisting the superiors/staff members and at the evening locking the premises.

(ii) Almost all the Petitioners are working for more than a decade. Though the post of Messenger is of permanent nature under the Opp. Party No.5/ Bank; as per the Rules framed under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. The petitioners were engaged by the Opposite Party No.5 on part-time basis on payment of daily wages.

(iii) The Opposite Party No.5/Bank has been sanctioning the amount separately for payment to the present category of employees in the name of “Branch Maintenance Expenditure”. The Branch Managers have been issued with guidelines in this regard by allotting fixed amounts to them for meeting the salary expenses of the present category of employees and such instructions have also been issued by the Opposite Party No.5/ Bank.

(iv) In exercise of power under Section 29 read with Section 17 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (hereinafter “the RRB Act”), the Opposite Party No.1 framed Rules named Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter “the RRB Rules”) which provides for the recruitment and promotion process to be followed in respect of all the category of posts. These facts unambiguously lead to the conclusion that the tasks performed by the present Petitioners are permanent and the Opposite Party No.5/ Bank is to fill up the same on permanent basis. But, in the present case, the Opposite Party No.5/ Bank is utilizing the services of the Petitioners on part time daily wage basis for decades tog