Back
2008 Supreme(Online)(KER) 3300
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
J.B.KOSHY, P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ
MATTANCHERRY SARVAJANIC CO-OP. BANK LTD. – Appellant
Versus
B.S.SANJEEV AND ANOTHER – Respondent
WA/1173/2008
SRI.MATHAI M PAIKKEDAY(SR.), SRI.JOSE THOMAS (PALA), SRI. A.G. ANEETHA, SRI. P.P. JACOB
Regularization of employment in the public sector should be dated to the establishment of the sanctioned position rather than the beginning of commission-based work.
Headnote:
Employment - Regularization - Act Section List - The court examined the requirements for the regularization of employment, referring to previous judgments and the discretion of the Bank regarding the appointment process, ultimately supporting the decision to regularize the petitioner from the date of sanctioned post.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, employed on a commission basis in a bank since 1990, sought regularization following a court directive. His employment faced challenges due to appeals and the need for sanctioned posts, culminating in a determination of regularization from a specific date.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the petitioner should be regularized from the date the Appraiser post was sanctioned rather than when he initially began working, given that he had been performing the duties of the position prior to the official sanction.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner should be regularized from the date of his initial commission or the date when the post was officially sanctioned.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that regularization should align with the sanctioned post date, reinforcing the principle that requirements must be met before formal employment recognition.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the regularization date set by the previous judgment.
J U D G M E N T
KOSHY,J.
Writ petitioner in this case was working in the appellant Co-operative Bank as an Appraiser from 19.12.1990 on Commission basis. He had full time work. This Court in W.A.No.1765/2003 , noticed that Joint Registrar recommended the regularisation of the appointment of the petitioner and considered all other facts and directed by Ext.A1 judgment to regularsie the services of the petitioner. At paragraph 4 of the judgment it is stated as follows:
“4. Circumstances do indicate that the Bank requires assistance of an Appraiser and they are prepared to fill up the post on a regular basis. When there is need for permanent employee sanction need not be withheld, on the plea that the Act and Rules did to lay down qualifications in respect of the Appraiser to be appointed in the W.A.1173/08 2 Co-operative Institution.”
However, it was stated that regularisation should be at the discretion of the Bank and by appreciating the nature of the service he was rendering during the past years, they will be able to decide as to the method to compensate him. It is further stated that even if the Registrar did not approve the same, Bank can regularise his service on their own terms. Ext.A1 judgment was appealed against by the Joint Registrar as well as the Government. Bank was the party to the writ appeals also. Again petitioner approached this Court when two posts of Appraiser were notified during the pendency of the writ appeal against Annexure A1 judgment. At that time Registrar by order dated 23.6.2003 directed to regularise the service of the petitioner. Recording the same, Ext.P2 judgment was passed wherein, the order of the Registrar dated 23.6.2003 is quoted as follows:
“In obedience to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in O.P.No.220/2003 A dated 23.5.2003, the bank is permitted to regularise the petitioner Sri.B.S.Sanjeev as W.A.1173/08 3 Appraisor in the service of the Bank immediately. The confirmation will be subject to the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court on an appeal filed by Registrar of Co- operative Societies before the Hon'ble High Court. The action taken by the bank should be reported to this office promptly.”
The learned Judge thereafter directed to regularise the services of the petitioner as ordered by the Registrar and directed the Bank that only one post of Appraiser alone shall be notified. In that appeal filed against Annexure A1 judgment, a Division Bench of this Court in the common judgment dated 14.6.2005, in W.A.Nos.1765/2003 and 667/2004 considered the matter in detail. In the judgment, at paragraph 3 it is observed as follows:
“3. It is seen that the Joint Registrar, who recommended the regularisation of appointment of the petitioner, as he was the only person who participated in the interview and was successful also, as can be seen from Ext.P8 communication, filed appeal against such appointment. We see no ground to interfere with the judgment impugned in this writ appeal and therefore W.A.No.1785 of
2003 is dismissed.”
W.A.1173/08 4 Meanwhile, this Court directed the bank that only one vacancy can be notified and in paragraph 5, further it is held as follows:
“5. Since the petitioner has to be regularised in view of Ext.P3 representation and also of the direction in the impugned judgment in W.P.(C).No.20947 of 2003, the Bank shall make arrangements only to fill up the remaining vacancy of one post of appriaser.”
This is an inter party judgment and it is binding on the appellant and on the Joint Registrar. After the above judgment, then the question to be considered was whether petitioner should be regularised from the date of initial engagement on commission basis from 19.12.1990 or on the date when regular post was sanctioned (9.6.1997) or on any subsequent days, and, by Ext.P4, Registrar has decided that the regularisation shall be effected from 9.6.1997, the date on which such a post was regularly sanctioned as per the approved staff strength of the Bank as he was performing the W.A.1
