The court ruled that prolonged engagement of casual workers without regularization violates fair employment standards, directing a scheme for regularization based on service length and suitability.

ORDER :

PULLA KARTHIK, J.

1. Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.1 Bank in continuing petitioners 2 to 457 on daily wage basis in Group C posts in its offices, without regularizing their services in furtherance of the directions issued by this Court in W.A. No.2013 of 2017, dated 14.02.2022, and rejecting their claim vide reply dated 09.05.2022, the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned senior counsel, representing Smt.Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Mujeeb Kumar Sadashivuni, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent-Bank.

3. Learned senior counsel has submitted that petitioner No.1 is the Registered Trade Union and remaining petitioners numbering 456 are its members and working as Messenger/sweeper/casual labour in Head Office, Regional Offices and 400 branches of respondent-Bank, on temporary basis. Respondent No.1 is the Regional Rural Bank incorporated under Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, and it was sponsored by State Bank of Hyderabad, which is now merged with State Bank of India. Further, the Government of India after consultation with NABARD and the sponsor Bank notified the Rules relating to appointment and promotion of officers and other employees in the RRBs. Initially, Regional Rural Banks (Appointment & Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1988, were made. As per Rule 10 thereof, the posts of Messenger, Messenger- cum-Sweeper (Full/Part time), Driver, Driver-cum-Messenger, Security shall be filled in by the Committee of RRB after making a reference to the Employment Exchange or other Agencies catering to the welfare of SC/ST and Physically Handicapped Persons. Schedule- II of the said Rules list out the names of RRBs sponsored by various nationalized banks. Schedule-II thereof prescribes the method of recruitment to various posts. Subsequently, the 1988 Rules were Repealed by the Government of India with the Rules of 2010. Clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6 thereof deal with the category of posts, creation of posts, method of appointment and appointing authority respectively. The post of Messenger and Messenger-cum-Sweeper are now known as Office Attendant (Multi Purpose) Group-C. Learned senior counsel has contended that there was no recruitment to the post of Messenger in any of the Branches of respondent No.1 Bank, during the last 25 years, and petitioner Nos.2 to 457 were appointed in those posts on temporary basis and are continued without any break. All of them are working since more than 20 years and are being paid on daily wage basis. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to certain lists from the material papers showing the length of service of each of the petitioners for proving the factum of his/her working in their respective branch of respondent No.1-Bank. Learned senior counsel has contended that petitioners 2 to 457 have been working in various branches of respondent No.1-Bank since more than a decade, still they are continued through outsourcing basis only to avoid the regularization of their service as well as the benefits flowing therefrom. Further, the working hours of petitioners 2 to 457 are from 10 AM to 6 PM, but they normally stretch upto 9 PM every day. The duties performed by them are perennial in nature and are essentially connected with the maintenance/upkeep and functioning of the branches of the Bank and none of the branches of the respondent-Bank can function without the duties performed by petitioners 2 to 457 and it is an essential post. As such, the petitioner No.1 Union has been requesting for regularizing the services of the members, but the Bank has n