High Court · 2025

cle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a wri{, order or direction particurarry in the nature of writ of Mandamus, directing thd' respondents to regurarize the services of the petitioner immediately after the day of completion of 240 days of their engagement, otherwise they will be pu't to irretrievable loss and hardship. l.A. NO:1 OF 2004(wPMP. NO: 29300 O F 20041 I Petition under seEtion 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppbrt of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the 1st respondent to keep one post of sweeper vacant in the interest of justice pending disposat of the Wp. I I I I.A. NO:1 oF 2015 MP. NO:29848 0F 201 5) Petition under Seclion 151 CPC praying that in the circumstan':es stated in the affidavit filed in supp.rt of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to take up the above Writ retition "for hearing" on out of turn basis as the existing vacancies are goinl toi be filled by the respondents in the inter€ st of justice pending disposal of tre oresent Writ Petition' I ! n"=pondent Nos'1 To 3: SRI A'KRISHNAM RAJU Counsel for the Petitiorler: SRI A'K'JAYAPRAKASH RAO ;;ffiiiL i't ior the Respondent No'4: sRl N'vlJAY ;;;;;i The Court made the following: ORDER " i THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA WRIT PEIITION No.22343 of 2OO4 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking. direction to the respondents to regt arize her services immediately after the day of completion of 24O days of her engagement.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner was working as a casual labour in the State Bank of ffyderabaa as a Sweeper since 1994, as per the letter dated 28. 10.2000. During the year 1999, uide proceedings dated 06.05.1999, respondents herein regularized some of the people, who are at par with the petitioner, even juniors were considered and regularized. He also stated that petitioner was appointed after conducting proper interview. Though the respondents directed the petitioner to apply for regularization of her service, her candidature was rejected on the ground of "crossing the prescibed age," and the copy of the rejection letter dated O7.O5.2OO4 is enclosed along with the affrdavit. Again, during the month of June, 20O4, respondents have regulariz.ed the far juniors than the petitioner, who are working in cycle stald, who are no way concerned with the Bank administration or affairs. 2 karne d rlounsei for the petitioner further state(l that 3. respondents iss'red proceedings No'GO/AGMS/F 4/NOIE:21' dated 06.05.199'9, for augmentation of Subordinate staff at Branch, wht rein the petitioner name was reflecting at Sl No'6- HealsoStatedthattherearetwosweeperpostsvacantinthe Bank ancl t re Sretitioner can be accommodated in one of the posts, as sh: is entitled for it in view of the lengthy servi';e from 1994. kt thr: letter addressed by the Deputy General Manager' Zoral Offi<:e , Hyderabad to the DGM's Secretariat' GunJoundry Branch, d,aled 28.lo.2ooo, it was stated that it was imlreiative that adeque te s ubordinate staff strength was maintaine( [ at the Branch anrl tt-'ey gave the details of 31 workers' r'" ho are working i15 6i1:;ual labourers in the cadre of sweeper and shown at Messenger luti':s, in which the petitioner narne S1.No.5. He a1s,r stated that respondents have informed about the necessily cf the services of the petitioner as per lettels dated 06.05.1999 aacl 28.1O-2O00' Therefore, requested the Oourt to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the "vas petitioner. karl Led Counsel for the petitioner has filed thr': AGM's 4. Secretarizrt note dated 06.05.1999, in which the details of the 18 membet s of the subordinate staff, who are promoted' expired 3 and relie ved from the Brarrch were mentioned. It was also mentioned in the said note that as the total area of the Branch was 888 10 Sq.fts, 17 sweepers and 6 lunch room attendant_ cum-water boys are required, as such the names of 23 employees were listed for favourabie consideration, in which the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.6. In the letter dated O7.O5.2OO4, it was stated that in view of the transfer certi{icate of the petitioner, she crossed the prescribed age limit and thus she was not qualifred for the interview.

5. In the counter hled by the Chief Manager, Treasury Branch in the State Bank of Hyderabad, Head Ofhce, Hyderabad, he stated ttrat in proceedings dated 06.05.1999, there was only a recital to consider the petitioner and others for appointment as sweepers on consolidated wages and there was no regularization of the employee. So dlso, in the proceedings daled 28.10.2000 of the Deputy General Manager of the Bank, referring to the petitioner only mentioned the necessity of the casual labour including the petitioner and requires examination of the proposal for absorption of such casual labour on consolidated wages and the said proceedings will not confer any right to t1.e petitioner to seek absorption into the regular service as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 4 Secretary, ;^.itate of Kantaltolka and others Vs' Uma Deuir ' Petitioner gaue application on 07.O2.2OO3, for appointmr:nt for the post clf s\ '()eper-cum-water boy/women-cum-1unch room attendant rtr. colrsolidated wages' She was called for int.erview on 31.07.2013 .tid.e letter dated 15'07'2003' During the said interview, r:e 11 letters were sent to 175 eligible candida'tt's' The maximum a;e Jimit prescribed was 26 years as on 01 03 2004 and the petitiotrer was aged 29 years,5 months and l.hus she was informt d '-hat she was over aged' Hence, requesl ed the Court to disr niss the pre sent petition. In th.e rcgrly affidavit frled by the petitioner, she stat3d that

6. her services were not regularized in spite of putting 32 1'ears of continuours service in the respondents' organizatiort' She also stated that iespondents' Bank misinterpreted the Judgroent of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Uma DeVi's case and she relied upon anoth rr clccision of the Hon'lcle Apex Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India and others,2 in which it was held as follows: ''22.TlLe peruasiue misuse of temporary emplollrtent contra')ts, 'zs exemplified in this ca,se' rellects a broader sgsten.ic issue that aduerselg affects workers' nqhts and joc seetritg. In the piuate sector, the rbe of thtt gig ' 2006 (4) scc 1 , 2024 INSC trB I 5 economg ho.s led to an increase in precaious emp_loAment, affangements, often characterized. bg lack of benefits, job secarity, ind fair treatment. Such practices hnue been citicized for exploiting uorkers and. undermtning labour stand.ards. GoiernnJnt institutions, entrusted uith upholding tlrc principles of faimess and. j".t:n, bear an euen greater responsibilitg to auoid such explottatiue employment practices. Whei- public sector entities engage in mi_suse of temporary coitracts, it not onlg mirrors the detimental trends o,b""*" in the gig economA but also sets a concerning preced.ent that can erode public tntst in gouemmental operations... ...27. It is imperatiue for gouemment d.epartments to lead bg example in prouidtng fair and stable employment. Engaging u_torkers on a temporary bosis for ertended periods, especially *hen ih"i,'role. or. integral to ttrc organi-zation,s functioning, not onty contrauenes international labour stand.ai.s Aut atso exposes th.e organizatton to legal challenges and_ undermines employee morale. Bg .n uing fair emplogment practices, gouentment institutions can reduce the burd.en of unnecessary litigation, promote job secuitg, and uphold tlw principles of justice and fairness that tteg are meant to embody.- This approach aligns ulith international standard.s anl sets a'positiue precedent for the priuate sector to foltou, ifrereAg contibuting to tlte ouerall betterment of labour practices in the cointry."

7. Petitioner has also hled the letter of Deputy General Manager, Personal Department, Hyderabad, dated 03.O1.2OO7, in which she was shown as part_time casua,l worker, engaged on temporary basis since 1994 and, her age was shown as 32 years as on 3O. I l.2006. 6 DeputY Gene'ral

8. Admitte'dlY, PetitioneCs name was recommended hY the the requirement dated not considered in the Manager, in view of 06.05.1999, but it was

28.10.2000 a'rd over aged. When the. interview on the ground that she was respondents are taking up several other employees by way of interview, thrly should have given priority to the petitioner, who was workinl; continuously from 1994 onwards withotlt any complaints. Rejection of her appointment on the ground that she is over aged is not proper, when her juniors are absorbed and regularized. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just'and reasonable to consider the regularization of the petitioner herein from the date ol rejection of her application dated 07'05'2004 till the date of her retirement'" In the res;ult, the present writ petition is allowed with a 9. specific direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitione'r from 07.05'2004 onwards w'ithin one month from the date of this irder. There shall be no order as to costs' Misct Ilarreous petitions pending' if any' shall stand closed. Tha': Ruie Nisi has been made absolute as above' Witness THE HON'Bl-E THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL' on this TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTTT'-ONi t;i T'TAiCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE SD/.T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTAN'T REGISTRAR NOTE: That the 8rh & 9'n paragraph of the Order dated ft-os2dis'l; w.p r.ro it2343"of 2oo4 are substituted ;; f"il"; "8. Admittedlv, petitioner's name was iJ.J""irii"^a"J iv itt" o"d'iv General Manaser' in 'iequirernerit iated 28'10'2o0.0 qtd ;;"';i ob.irt.rsisd, uut t lvas not considered in the the ground that she was over- aged' in1"*il* idir;;'ih; iesfon'ients are taking up several other ;'J;[H" ;iilrv "i- int"*iew' ttr6v should- h.ave ,,ivl,n 'nrioritv to the oetitioner. who was worxlng ih; -on continuously from 1994 onwards without any complaints. Rejection of her appointment on th6 ground that she is over aged is not proper, when !9r juniors are absorbed and' regularized. Therefore, this Court i finds that it is just and reasonable to consider the regularizatioh of the petitioner herein from the date bf rejection of her application dated 07.05.2004 till the date of her retirement." & "9. ln the result, the present writ petition is allowed with a specific direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from 07.05.2004 onwards within one month from the date of this order.,, as per the Orders of Hon'ble Court dated 28.03.2025 in l.A.No.1 of 2025. This amended order shall substitute the earlier order which has already been dispatched on 21 .03.2025. To ! //TRUE COPY// SD/-T. TIRUMALA DEVI PUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER ( L 1 2 3 f Managing Directo Head Office, State Bank Of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad. Deputy General Manager Head Office, State Bank Of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad. The Assistant General Manager Treasury Branch, State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad. Hvderabad.

4. Chief General Manager, State Bank of lndia, Head Officer' Gunfoundry' s ij'.,l"cCiJ s Rl A. K. JAYAP RAKAS H RAo, Advocqle. [oPUC] 6. il;6c i; SFiin.kntsurunu RAJU, Advocate [oPUC] i. o;; cc io snt N.VIJAY, Advocate [oPUC] B. Two CD CoPies PSK BS % HIGH COUR'T DATED: 1810312025 281Ct312025 \ AMENDED ORDER WP.No.22343 of 2004 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS o*' W 1iiE. -s lii - ) 16 Aif ;m ( e c o 7- * 1).-. i-- r c) {+