IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.6868 of 2011
Sachidanand Sharma, s/o- Kirani Sharma, r/o- village- Jagapakar
Sharma Tola, P.S.- Jagapakar, District- East Champaran, at present
residing in the duty room of the Chandra Gupta Apartment, Central
Bank of India, Nageshwar Colony, East Boring Road, Patna.
............. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union Of India through the Secretary, Finance/Banking,
Government of India, New Delhi
2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Bank of India,
Central Office, Chandra Mukhi, Nariman Point, Munbai.
3. The Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Maurya
Lok Complex, B-Block, Patna-1.
4. The Chandra Gupta Apartment Welfare Association, Central Bank
of India, Nageshwar Colony, East Boring Road, Patna through its
President-cum-Assistant General Manager, Central Bank of India,
Maurya Lok Complex, B-Block, Patna-1.
5. The Chief Manager, Human Resource Development, Central Bank
of India, Zonal Office, Maurya Lok Complex, B-Block, Patna-1.
6. The Chief Manager, General Administration Department, Zonal
Office, Patna.
7. The Senior Manager, Zonal Office, Central Bank of India, Patna.
....... Respondents
With
CWJC No.6909 of 2011
Baban Kumar Sharma, s/o- Budha Deo Rai, r/o- Village- Bharthua,
P.S.- Aurai, District- Muzaffarpur, at present residing in the duty room
of the Chandra Gupta Apartment, Central Bank of India, Nageshwar
Colony, East Boring Road, Patna.
............ Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union Of India through the Secretary, Finance/Banking,
Government of India, New Delhi
2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Bank of India,
Central Office, Chandra Mukhi, Nariman Point, Munbai.
3. The Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Maurya Lok
Complex, B-Block, Patna-1.
4. The Chandra Gupta Apartment Welfare Association, Central Bank of
India, Nageshwar Colony, East Boring Road, Patna through its
President-cum-Assistant General Manager, Central Bank of India,
Maurya Lok Complex, B-Block, Patna-1.
5. The Chief Manager, Human Resource Development, Central Bank
of India, Zonal Office, Maurya Lok Complex, B-Block, Patna-1.
6. The Chief Manager, General Administration Department, Zonal
Office, Patna.
7. The Senior Manager, Zonal Office, Central Bank of India, Patna.
.......... Respondents
2
For the petitioners : Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, Advocate.
For the Bank : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
-----------
4 26.07.2011 The two writ petitions raise common issues and as such
were made cognate and heard together. The order present shall
govern both the cases.
Petitioners seek quashment of deemed/anticipated
order of removal from the post of Security Guard/Care Taker of
the Chandra Gupta Apartment which, according to the
petitioners, is the property of the Central Bank of India (for short
“the Bank”) located in Nageshwar Colony, Boring Road, Patna.
Further prayer has been made to command the respondents to
regularize their services in the Bank on the post of Security
Guard/Care Taker or any Class-IV post.
Relevant facts shall be drawn from C.W.J.C. No. 6868
of 2011. Petitioner claims to have been appointed/engaged as
Security Guard of the management of the respondent Bank
under some order of the competent authority w.e.f. 1.5.1988.
His services were placed under the Chandra Gupta Apartment
owned by the Bank. The petitioner has enclosed Annexure-1
series in support of the aforesaid submission. It is the case of
the petitioner that since then he has been rendering his services
uninterruptedly without any complain or grievance of the
occupants of the said Apartment who all are the officials of the
respondent Bank. It is the case of the petitioner that he has
been receiving salary which was revised from time to time after
3
the concurrence of the Chief Manager, General Administration,
Zonal office, Patna. Few documents have been attached to
show that the salary/wage being paid to him was under the
orders of the respondent Chief Manager. Petitioner filed several
representations before the authorities of the Bank to regularize
his service against vacant sanctioned Class-IV post in view of
the his long engagement and rendering of duties. One of such
representations was filed on 15.8.2009 before the C.M.D. of the
Bank seeking regularization (Annexure-2) which ignited internal
communication between the officials at the regional level of the
Bank. On 24.3.2011, the petitioner submitted an application to
the Zonal Manager of the Bank for payment of arrears of salary
as also for regularization of service on the post of Security
Guard (Annexure-7) but no action thereon was taken which
prompted him to file the writ petition with the aforesaid prayer(s).
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondent Bank in which a stand has been taken that petitioner
was never engaged and/or appointed by the respondent Bank
and as such there is no question of regularization of his service.
It is the case of the respondent Bank that occupants of the
Apartment called Chandragupta Apartment formed an
association called Chandragupta Apartment Welfare
Association ( for short ” CAWA”). The aforesaid association
(CAWA) engaged few persons as Security Guard,
Safaiwala/Watchman. The payment of wages to such
4
employees including the petitioner are made under the orders of
the Office Bearers of CAWA. Petitioner has not brought any
order of engagement having been passed in their favour by the
respondent Bank. On the contrary, the documents on which
reliance has been placed by the petitioner would show that
payment of wages to such employees such as Safaiwala,
Watchman, Electrician, Plumber is/are made by the CAWA. It is
also the stand of the respondents that the petitioner and another
Watchman filed a case before Central Government Industrial
Tribunal, Dhanbad being Case No. 146 of 1999 raising a
dispute with regard to payment of wages and other ancillary
relief(s). Said matter is still pending. Relying on Annexure-1
series of the writ petition as also Annexure-1 to the
supplementary affidavit, it has been pointed out that those
documents would eloquently show that officials of CAWA used
to pay wages to such employees engaged by it for which an
account was maintained in the name of Central Apartment
Welfare Association (Annexure-3). The copy of the cheque
enclosed as Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit would
show that signatories of the cheque are Secretary and
Treasurer of CAWA.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
although there is no order on record indicating
engagement/appointment of the petitioner(s) by the respondent
Bank and/or under orders of the respondent Bank but relevant
5
documents attached with the writ petition would show that the
respondent Bank had control over the payment of wages/salary
to the petitioner and as such relationship of master and servant
existed between the respondent Bank and the petitioner.
Petitioner(s) can, therefore, legitimately claim regularization on
the post on which he is working since last several years. In this
regard, he relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of State of Karnataka versus M.L. Keshri since reported in
(2010) 9 S.C.C. 247.
Respondents, on the other hand, referred to and relied
on judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa
versus Mamta Mohanty since reported in (2011) 3 S.C.C. 436.
I have heard the parties and perused the materials on
record. There is no document on record to show that the
petitioner was ever engaged and/or appointed by the
respondent Bank. The petitioner has himself stated in paragraph
1 that he was engaged as Security Guard of the Apartment in
question by some competent authority of the Bank/Chief
Manager, H.R.D. Central Bank of India. The documents placed
on record would show that the payment of wages to the
petitioner used to be authorized by the Secretary of CAWA from
the head “Expenses on Maintenance of Chandragupta
Apartment”. The letter dated 19.6.2008 (Annexure-4) clearly
indicate that petitioner like other was engaged as Security
Guard by the CAWA and he had filed a dispute in the Tribunal
6
demanding minimum wages and the petitioner had agreed to
withdraw the said case on the assurance of CAWA to increase
his wage in view of increasing inflation. Petitioner has also not
been able to demonstrate that the post of Watchman is a
sanctioned post and/or post covered governed under category
IV of the employees of the Bank. It does not appear that he
possessed prescribed qualification for the said post, if any. True
it is that the petitioner seems to have rendered services for
more than 10 years but he has not been able to demonstrate
that the service rendered by him was against a sanctioned post
and under the orders of the respondent Bank. As I have noticed,
the writ petition in this regard vaguely states that he has been
engaged by some competent authority of the respondent Bank.
In view of the aforesaid facts appearing from record, in my view,
the reliance placed by the petitioner on State of Karnataka
versus M.L. Keshri (supra) is misplaced. It is the case of the
respondents that the petitioner was engaged as Watchman by
the Association (CAWA) and payments were made under the
orders of the Office Bearers of CAWA from an account
maintained in the name of CAWA. It appears from the
annexures attached to the writ petition that some
recommendations were made by the officials of the respondent
Bank for induction of the petitioner in the regular service of the
Bank but those communications in the shape of
recommendation would not vest the petitioner with any legal
7
right to enforce by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Establishing the relationship of master and servant will not be
sufficient to invoke jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of writ
directing the respondent Bank to regularize his services
particularly when such relationship between the petitioner(s)
and the respondent Bank has not been shown and/or
demonstrated.
It further appears that the petitioner treating himself to
be a Workman raised dispute under the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal. This Court is not aware of the fate of the
aforesaid proceeding levied by the petitioner. According to
respondent Bank, the said matter is still pending whereas the
stand of the petitioner is that on his request, the matter has
been dropped. However, this much is evident that the petitioner
treating himself to be a workman raised the dispute. In a case of
workman also, there is relationship of master and servant. The
petitioner, therefore, would not be justified in submitting that
since the relationship of master and servant is somewhat
admitted, this Court should direct the respondent Bank to
regularize his service as watchman/Security Guard or any other
Class-IV post. This Court is, thus, satisfied that the petitioner
was engaged and retained as Watchman/Security Guard of the
Apartment by the Association formed by the occupants of the
Apartment called CAWA and not by and under orders of
respondent Bank.
8
In the light of discussions made hereinabove, I am
satisfied that no case for issuance of writ/direction, as prayed for
in the applications, is made out by the petitioners and the
applications deserve to be rejected.
I order accordingly.
(Kishore K. Mandal, J.)
pkj