“NON-REPORTABLE”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.10845 of 2009

H.S. Rajashekara …. Petitioner

Versus

State Bank of Mysore & Anr. …. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.

1. The petitioner herein was inducted into the service of the State Bank  

of Mysore (hereinafter referred to as, the Bank) as a temporary Sub-Staff  

in 1985.  He was intermittently taken into employment based on the need  

for such staff.  During the year 1994-95, he claims to have rendered more  

than 240 days of service in a calendar year.  Based thereon, he claimed  

that  he  be  included  in  the  “protected  category”  of  employees.   Having  

satisfied  the  “protected  category”  criteria,  the  petitioner  applied  for  

absorption  as  a  permanent  employee,  by  citing  the  example  of  one  

Devaraju,  by  addressing  representations  to  the  Bank.   It  is  also  the  

contention of  the petitioner,  that  the employees union of  the Bank also  

addressed a communication dated 13.12.1997 to the management of the  

1

Bank requiring it to absorb the petitioner as a permanent employee.  Since  

the representations made by the petitioner, and recommendation made by  

the employees union of the Bank, did not result in any consideration at the  

hands of the Bank, the petitioner approached the High Court of Karnataka  

(hereinafter referred to as, the High Court) by filing a Writ Petition being  

W.P. No. 45932 of 1999.  The aforesaid Writ Petition came to be disposed  

of by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 14.12.2004.  In this  

behalf, it would be relevant to mention, that the High Court did not examine  

the merits of the controversy raised by the petitioner.  Rather than doing  

that,  the  High  Court  directed  the  Bank  to  take  a  decision  on  the  

representation  made by the petitioner  by passing a written order.   The  

Bank was also directed to communicate the same to the petitioner.

2. The bank, while examining the claim raised by the petitioner, noticed  

the contention of the petitioner as under:-

“(i) He has worked in several branches in Mysore during the  period 1985 to 1997.

(ii) During 8.7.1994 to 30.8.1995, he has served for 292 days.

(iii) State Bank of Mysore Employees Union has recommended  him to be employed on permanent basis.   He has given  applications in this regard.

(iv) He has passed SSLC.

(v) One of his colleagues, one Shri Devaraju has also passed  SSLC and he has been given employment on permanent  basis.   Therefore,  he has prayed for  passing of  suitable  

2

order  of  appointment  in  his  favour  equivalent  to  the  job  given to one Shri Devaraju.”

Despite the aforesaid pleas raised at the hands of the petitioner, the Bank  

by an order dated 24.8.2005, rejected the petitioner’s claim for absorption  

as a permanent employee.  Two reasons were indicated in the order dated  

24.8.2005 for not accepting the petitioner’s claim.  It was found, that the  

petitioner had not worked for 240 days in a calendar year, and that, he had  

qualified the SSLC examination.  The petitioner approached the High Court  

yet  again,  to  impugn  the  order  dated  24.8.2005.   At  this  juncture,  the  

petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 22324 of 2005.  Having dealt with the  

controversy  raised  by the  petitioner,  the  High  Court  by  its  order  dated  

13.11.2007,  held  that  the petitioner  was  not  entitled to absorption as a  

permanent  employee.   The learned Single Judge,  while dismissing Writ  

Petition No. 22324 of 2005 acknowledged, that the petitioner had worked  

for 292 days from 8.7.1994 to 30.8.1995.  Despite the aforesaid, the High  

Court was of the view, that the petitioner could not be given the benefit  

claimed by him.  This conclusion was drawn because the service for 240  

days in a “calendar year”, was to be determined with reference to service  

rendered between the 1st day of January of a particular year, upto 31st day  

of December of the same year.  Examined on the basis of the aforesaid  

parameters, it was concluded, that the petitioner had not render service for  

a  period  of  240  days  in  a  “calendar  year”.   It  was  also  sought  to  be  

3

concluded, that the petitioner had not worked in one branch of the bank  

during  the  period  from  8.7.1994  to  30.8.1995.   It  was  sought  to  be  

concluded, that while computing 240 days in a “calendar year” only service  

rendered  in  one  branch  of  the  Bank  could  have  been  taken  into  

consideration.  It was accordingly held, that service rendered in different  

branches could not be added together to calculate the period of 240 days  

(in a “calendar year”).  As such, the claim raised by the petitioner did not  

find favour with the High Court in its order dated 13.11.2007.

3. The petitioner assailed the order dated 13.11.2007, passed by the  

learned Single Judge of the High Court (while disposing of Writ Petition  

No.  22324  of  2005),  by  preferring  Writ  Appeal  No.  24  of  2008.   The  

Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the aforesaid Writ Appeal on  

4.11.2008.  While adjudicating upon the controversy, the Division Bench  

referred  to  the  judgment  rendered  by  this  Court  in  Secretary,  State  of   

Karnataka  &  Ors.  Vs.  Uma  Devi  &  Ors.  [(2006)  4  SCC  1],  so  as  to  

conclude, that the petitioner was not entitled to regularization in terms of  

the parameters laid down by this Court.

4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the claim raised by  

the petitioner.  The petitioner had approached the High Court, in the first  

instance, by filing Writ Petition No. 45932 of 1999.  The issue raised by  

him as far back in the year 1999 remains unsettled till today.  The claim of  

4

the  petitioner  as  has  been  projected  in  the  order  passed  by  the  

respondents on 24.8.2005 was clear and unambiguous, namely, that he  

should be given the same benefit as was given to Shri Devaraju who had  

qualified the SSLC examination just like the petitioner, and despite thereof,  

he was  absorbed as a permanent  employee.   The claim raised by the  

petitioner was primarily raised under articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution  

of India.  The petitioner prayed for parity with the aforesaid Shri Devaraju.  

This claim of the petitioner was correctly appreciated, inasmuch as, the  

same  was  clearly  noticed  in  the  impugned  order  dated  24.8.2005.  

Unfortunately, even though the High Court by its order dated 14.12.2004  

(while disposing of Writ Petition No. 45932 of 1999) had directed the Bank  

to decide the representation made by the petitioner, yet the claim of the  

petitioner based on a similar benefit having been granted to Shri Devaraju,  

was never adjudicated upon.  The same claim was raised by the petitioner  

before the High Court  in Writ  Petition No. 22324 of  2005,  (wherein the  

petitioner assailed the order passed by the Bank on 24.8.2005).  Yet again,  

the  contention  remained  unanswered.   Thereafter,  the  learned  Division  

Bench  (in  Writ  Appeal  No.24  of  2008)  again  rejected  the  claim of  the  

petitioner  without  reference to  his  principal  prayer,  viz.,  parity  with  Shri  

Devaraju.   The  appeal  preferred  by  the  petitioner,  assailing  the  order  

passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 22324 of 2005,  

was adjudicated upon with reference to the decision rendered by this Court  

5

in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi & Ors. [supra] even  

though the same had no relevance to the prayer made by the petitioner.  

The simple question raised by the petitioner was,  with  reference to the  

decision  of  the  Bank  in  absorbing  Shri  Devaraju,  as  a  permanent  

employee.  The claim of the petitioner was founded under Articles 14 and  

16 of the Constitution of India.  Unfortunately, the aforesaid issue was not  

considered even in the second round of litigation.  The matter has now  

been placed for our consideration, at the hands of the petitioner, through  

the instance Petition for Special Leave to Appeal.

5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the claim raised by  

the petitioner.  The learned Single Judge while deciding Writ Petition No.  

22324 of 2005 acknowledged, that the petitioner had worked for 292 days  

from 8.7.1994 to 30.8.1995.  That, coupled with the fact, that Shri Devaraju  

was absorbed as a permanent employee even though he had qualified the  

SSLC examination, in our view, should have been sufficient to examine the  

claim raised by the petitioner without reference to the disqualification of  

having qualified the SSLC examination.  In  Radha Raman Samanta  Vs.   

Bank  of  India,  (2004)  1  SCC 605,  this  Court  relied  upon  the  following  

observations recorded in Budge Budge Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Workmen,  

(1970) 1 LLJ 222 (SC), to record its observations :

from para 17 “…..Thus a  badli workman only means a person  who is employed as a casual workman who is working in place of  

6

another.  By virtue of the bipartite agreement published in Circular  No. XVIII/90/20 dated 7-9-1990 of the federation of the Bank, such a  badli worker is entitled to be absorbed if he completes 240 days of  badli service in a block of twelve months or a calendar year after  10.2.1988. Based on the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single  Judge  after  considering  the  relevant  documents,  the  fact  of  the  appellant's  service  for  the  required  period  cannot  be  disputed.  Nomenclature of his work profile may change, but it is clear that he  rendered services in a vacancy of a temporary post for more than  240 days. This is sufficient to treat him as a badli for the purpose of  absorption…..”

It  is  therefore  clear,  that  for  labour  related  matters  the terms “calendar  

year”   and “block  of  twelve  months”  are  interchangeable.   It  would  be  

sufficient, if the petitioner could establish, that he had rendered more than  

240 days service in a “block of twelve months”.  This in our view should  

have  been  the  determinating  factor  in  a  case  where  the  consideration  

pertained to the consideration of an employee’s claim for inclusion in the  

“protected  category”  merely  on  account  of  having  rendered  240  days  

service in a “calendar year”.  In view of the above, we are satisfied, that the  

petitioner fulfilled the condition of having rendered service for 240 days in a  

“calendar year”.  The pleadings in the instant Petition for Special Leave to  

Appeal,  as  also,  the  judgments  and  orders  appended  thereto  do  not  

disclose any condition to the effect, that service rendered while computing  

240 days in a “calendar year”,  should have been rendered in the same  

branch of the Bank.  Keeping these factual ingredients in mind, and the  

fact that the petitioner has been suffering litigation since the year 1999, we  

feel that it would not be appropriate to require the re-adjudication of the  

7

entire controversy all over again.  In the peculiar facts and circumstances  

noticed  hereinabove,  we  direct  the  respondent  Bank  to  absorb  the  

petitioner as a permanent employee in the Sub-Staff cadre on the basis of  

having  rendered service for  more than 240 days  during  1994-95.   The  

petitioner would not be entitled to any further remuneration for the period  

hitherto  before,  other  than  difference  in  emoluments,  for  the  service  

already  rendered  by  him.   This  decision  shall  not  be  treated  as  a  

precedent, as the same has been rendered keeping in mind the peculiar  

facts and circumstances of this case.  

6. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

…………………………….J. (Asok Kumar Ganguly)

…………………………….J. (Jagdish Singh Khehar)

New Delhi; November 24, 2011.

8