Satya Parkash vs State Bank of India

Ajay Tewari, J.—By this petition the petitioner seeks issuance of a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as a Messenger Boy by the Local Implementation Committee of the State Bank of India, Nuh on 01.07.1988. On 06.04.1991 the respondent-bank came out with the regularization policy. It is common ground that the petitioner was not entitled to be regularized under the policy since he was overage at the time of initial recruitment. The petitioner applied for regularization but no order was passed thereon. However, w.e.f. 01.05.2001 his services were dispensed with and he was given all the benefits applicable under the Industrial law. It was at that stage he filed this instant writ petition.

The relevant clauses of the regularization policy are as follows:-

(iii) Age and Educational Qualification: At the time of initial temporary appointment, they should have been within the age limit of 18-26 years.

Relaxation:

(a) Age:

(i) Daily Wagers, who were within the prescribed age limits at the time of initial temporary appointment and have become overage after their services were dispensed with, may be given suitable relaxation in age as may be warranted in each case.

(b) Educational Qualification:

(iii) Daily Wagers of non-eligible category:

Daily wagers, who fall in either of the following categories, will not be considered eligible for being given a chance for permanent appointment:-

(a) Those, who did not fulfill the prescribed eligibility criteria relating to age, educational qualification etc. on the date of their initial temporary appointment.

Learned counsel for the respondent-bank has argued that in the face of these mandatory conditions it was not open to the respondent-bank to have considered his claim for regularization. He has further relied upon the judgment in the matter of State Bank of India and Others Vs. State Bank of India Canteen Employees'' Union (Bengal Circle) and Others, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that persons employed by the Local Implementation Committee as per the welfare scheme framed by the State Bank of India would not become employees of the bank.

In this view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Petition is dismissed. Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.