IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 23RD BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 31671 of 2003(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- A.MOHAMMED HANEEF, PEON, RURAL PLANNING AND CREDIT DEPARTMENT, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR, MUMBAI. 2. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE, SC, RBI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.31671/2003 U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 27/06/1985 TO THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 1/10/1986 FROM THE MANAGER OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM. P3: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 31/05/1988 ISSUED FROM ...DO.... P4: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 18TH JULY, 1989 FROM THE ..DO.... P5: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 3/12/99 FILED BY THE PETITIONER & OTHERS. P6: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 27/05/2000 FROM THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (ADMN) OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM. P7: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 23/11/2000 FROM THE ..DO... P8: COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER BY TELEGRAM. P9: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 3/06/2003 IN O.P.NO.23743/2001 B OF THIS HON.COURT. P10: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 9/09/2005 TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A): COPY OF TELEGRAM DTD. 06/01/1983. R1(B): COPY OF OFFICE ORDER STAFF NO.77 DTD. 01/10/1986. R1(C): COPY OF OFFICE ORDER STAFF NO.285 DTD. 31 MAY, 1988. R1(D): COPY OF MEMORANDUM LETTER DTD. 3RD DECEMBER, 1999 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. R1(E): COPY OF LETTER ADM (T) NO.7742/01.25.03/99-2000 DTD. 27TH MAY 2000, BY THE RESPONDENT. R1(F): COPY OF ORDER DTD. 3/06/2003 OF THE RESPONDENT. R1(G): COPY OF STATEMENT SHOWING THE SERVICE RENDERED BY TICCA MAZDOORS AT THE TIME OF RECRUITMENT OF THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.31671 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is presently working as a Peon in the office of the Regional Director of the Reserve Bank of India, Thiruvananthapuram. He was originally engaged as a Ticca Mazdoor on 10.01.1983. While he was so continuing as a Ticca Mazdoor, the petitioner made an application for appointment to the post of Peon/Part-time Waterboy. The petitioner was called for an interview on 04.08.1988 by Ext.P1 call letter. Pursuant to that recruitment process, the petitioner was appointed as a Part-time Waterboy by Ext.P2 appointment order dated 01.10.1986. Subsequently with effect from 16.05.1988 he was appointed as a Peon (Temporary) by Ext.P3 order dated 31.05.1988. Later on, the petitioner claimed reckoning of his service as a Ticca Mazdoor for the purpose of fixation of pay, seniority and other service benefits. That was declined by Ext.P6 order W.P.(C)No.31671 of 2003 -2- and also by Ext.P7 order. In Ext.P7 order the reason stated is as follows: “Please refer to your joint representation dated 7th June 2000 on the captioned subject. We advice that your representation has been carefully examined by Central Office and it is advised that your engagement as Ticca Mazdoor was purely on daily wages basis and against casual absenteeism. Your engagement against such casual vacancies does not confer on you any right for absorption/appointment in the Bank nor does the period of engagement count for seniority on regular appointment. Therefore, the Bank is unable to accede to your request.” 2. The petitioner challenged Ext.P7 by filing O.P. No.23743/2001, in which by Ext.P9 judgment the petitioner was permitted to produce all documents in support of his claim and the Executive Director of the Reserve Bank of India, Thiruvananthapuram, was directed to consider the claims of the petitioner. Pursuant to the same, Ext.P10 order has been passed rejecting the claim on the following findings: “(a) Shri A Mohammed Hanif was engaged as Ticca Mazdoor purely on daily wage basis against casual vacancies along with other Ticca Mazdoors from 10th January 1983 onwards. Since Ticca Mazdoors are not in the Banks regular service, the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 is not applicable to them. Such engagement does not confer any right for absorption/ appointment in the Bank. (b) Merely because the Bank obtained a list of persons sponsored by Employment Exchanges and a primary level W.P.(C)No.31671 of 2003 -3- screening of such persons was done before engaging them as Ticca Mazdoors, it can by no stretch of imagination be considered as appointment to a regular post. (c) Therefore, I conclude that the service rendered by Shri A Mohammed Hanif as Ticca Mazdoor against casual vacancies cannot be reckoned for fixation of seniority or for consequent monetary benefits on his regular appointment. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in his contention that his service as a Ticca Mazdoor during the period 10.01.1983 to 30.09.1986, has to be reckoned for fixation of seniority and salary.” 3. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P10 order seeking the following reliefs: “i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Ext.P10 order. ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to recken the service of the petitioner from 10-1-1983 to 30-9-1986 as Ticca Mazdoor for the purpose of seniority and salary and assign the rank in the seniority list, accordingly.” 4. According to the respondents, the service conditions of employees of the Reserve Bank of India are governed by Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 which are statutory rules. There is no post of Ticca Mazdoor included in the said regulations. They would contend that, the post of Ticca Mazdoor is a temporary post on daily wages and Ticca Mazdoors are engaged on need W.P.(C)No.31671 of 2003 -4- basis. In so far as that post is not a post borne on the services of the Reserve Bank of India, the said service put in as Ticca Mazdoor is not liable to be reckoned for service benefits in any other post of the RBI borne on the rolls of the bank under the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948. They would further contend that, the petitioner was selected and appointed as a Part-time Waterboy which is a post borne on the service of the Reserve Bank of India as a fresh appointment and petitioner's regular service starts only from his date of appointment as Waterboy with effect from 01.10.1986. That being so, his temporary service as a Ticca Mazdoor is not liable to be reckoned for the purpose of service benefits is the contention of the respondents. 5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 6. The petitioner has no case that the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 contains a post by name Ticca Mazdoor. The only contention of the petitioner is that, he has worked continuously for the period from W.P.(C)No.31671 of 2003 -5- 10.01.1983 to 01.10.1986 and therefore he must be treated as a regular staff of the Reserve Bank of India. As is evidenced by Ext.R1 (g) produced by the respondents petitioner had worked for 1004 days during the period from 10.01.1983 to 31.07.1986, which would go to show that the petitioner was working continuously as a Ticca Mazdoor which should be taken as a substantive post borne on the service of the Reserve Bank of India. I am unable to accept that contention. As is clear from Ext.P2 appointment order issued to the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed as a fresh recruit as a Part-time Waterboy. Neither Ext.P2 appointment order nor any service rules applicable gives any right to the petitioner to count his service as Ticca Mazdoor for any service benefits whatsoever. In so far as the staffs of the Reserve Bank are governed by statutory regulations and unless there is a specific regulation enabling the petitioner to claim as of right, service benefits in respect of past temporary service, the petitioner cannot be given such benefits. In the above circumstances, there is W.P.(C)No.31671 of 2003 -6- no merit in the writ petition and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/