UNITED BANK OF INDIA Vs. MADHAB CHANDRA KOLEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal directed against the order dated July 18, 1996 passed by the learned Singly Judge whereby the learned single Judge has directed the Respondents to regularise the service of the Petitioner forthwith preferably within September 30, 1996. It was also ordered that in order to regularise the service, the upper age limit shall be relaxed and this concession shall not be treated as a precedent. Aggrieved against this order the management of the Bank has filed this present appeal. A Division Bench of this Court has stayed operation of the impugned order. This appeal has come up before us for final disposal.

(2.) The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the Petitioner was appointed by the Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Maynaguri Branch, P.O. Mapara, P.S. Barasat, Dist 24 -Parganas (North) as a sub -ordinate staff/sub -staff. The Petitioner worked for 240 days in 1986, 1987 and 1988. When the permanent post of sub -staff in the Branch fell vacant on account of one Cash/Peon, Amal Chandra Ghosal, as he was transferred to the head office, the Petitioner was allowed to work in his place continuously from September, 1989 till March, 1991, thereby the Petitioner had fulfilled the criteria of work of 240 days in one year, i.e. 12 consecutive months. The Petitioner therefore approached the Respondents for absorption in the said bank and filed an application. The same was forwarded by the Branch Manager to the Regional Branch. The said application was rejected by the Regional Manager by his communication dated March 12, 1991 (Annexure 'C to the writ petition). Then the Petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court.

(3.) The contention of the writ petitioner in the writ petition was that in view of the settlement arrived at between the bank and the employees wherein it was agreed that the members of the casual staff will be regularised (Annexure 'F' to the writ petition), he should be regularised. It appears that none appeared on behalf of the Respondents before the Learned Single Judge. However, an affidavit in opposition has been filed by the bank. The stand taken by the bank before the Learned Single Judge was that the Petitioner is not an employee of the bank and as per the circulars dated March 24, 1981 and January 13, 1988 the manager has no authority to engage any temporary staff. it was pointed out that the certificate dated March 1, 1991 given by the branch manager is an unauthorised one and beyond the scope and authority of the branch manager in view of the circulars dated March 24, 1981 and January 13, 1988.