- (1.) Appellant-Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. has filed the present special appeal, challenging the judgment and order dated 20.9.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 8853 of 1988 (S/S) : Rudra Sen Singh Vs. Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Sitapur and another, whereby the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, directed the Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. (appellant herein) to allow Rudra Sen Singh (respondent herein) to continue in the services on the post of Sahyogi and consider his case for regularization. Furthermore, learned Single Judge, while appreciating the submission of the learned Counsel for the Co-operative Bank (appellant) formed an opinion that since Rudra Sen Singh (respondent herein) was deprived of the salary after 6.2.1989, therefore, a direction was issued to the District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Sitapur to pay the held up salary of the petitioner w.e.f. 6.2.1989 along with 10% interest within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.
(2.) Heard Mr. A.R. Khan, learned Counsel for the appellant and respondent-Mr. Rudra Sen Singh, who appeared in person.
(3.) Shorn off unnecessary details the facts of the case are as under : In the writ petition, the assertion of the respondent/writ petitioner was that initially he was engaged on ad hoc basis on the post of Sahyogi (Assistant) for 89 days vide order dated 21.1.1987. Thereafter, while making artificial break, he was again engaged for 89 days on the post of Sahyogi (Assistant) in different periods vide separate orders dated 22.4.1987, 20.7.1987, 21.10.1987, 19.1.1988, 20.4.1988 and 20.7.1988. Ultimately, on 20.10.1988, he was asked to work as daily rate worker on the post of Sahyogi (Assistant). Being aggrieved by the action of the appellant/respondent in adopting unfair labour practice in not regularizing the services of the writ petitioner though he had worked for more than 240 days continuously, the respondent/writ petitioner had approached this Court by means of writ petition No. 8853 of 1988, in which, initially, while a Division Bench of this Court entertaining the writ petition, vide order dated 15.11.1988, stayed the operation of the order dated 22.10.1988 and directed the appellant to allow the respondent/writ petitioner to work on ad hoc basis on the post which he held and pay his salary. Subsequently, the writ petition became cognizable by the learned Single Judge and ultimately, the learned Single Judge heard the writ petition finally and vide impugned order dated 19.9.2005, allowed the writ petition and directed to allow the writ petitioner to continue in service on the post of Sahyogi and consider his case for regularization. Furthermore, the learned Single Judge, directed the District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Sitapur to pay the held up salary of the writ petitioner w.e.f. 6.2.1989 along with 10% interest.;