IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12110 of 2011 Janak Shah son of Late Rudal Shah, R/o village- Kasaba Maker, P.S. Maker, Dist. Saran. ---Petitioner. Versus 1. The Bank Of India through its chairman, C-5 G, Block Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra East Mumbai- 4000051. 2. The General Manager Bank of India Zonal Head Office, Birchand Patel Path,Patna. 3. The Assistant General Manager Bank of India zonal Head Office, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. 4. The Branch Manager Bank of India Maker Branch Maker, Dist. Saran. ---Respondents. ----------- 02 27.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner seeks mandamus commanding the officials of the respondent Bank to regularize his service on any appropriate post. It is the case of the petitioner that he served the Bank on daily wage basis in various capacities from 1991 to 1993. It is further his case that similarly situated persons in different Branches have been granted permanence. For his engagement by the Bank on daily wage basis he has enclosed a certificate ( Annexure-3) issued by office bearer of the Bank of India Employees Union and copy of the „Rashan‟ Card (Annexure-1) which describes the petitioner as Peon of the Bank of India. Those documents are not adequate enough to show that petitioner served the Bank in any capacity on daily wage basis. Petitioner has also submitted that in the matter of grant of permanence /regularization he has been discriminated by the officials of the Bank. In this connection, he relies on averments made in paragraph nos. 7 and 13 which read as under:- “7. That petitioner has come to know that respondent Authority has regularized the service of one Surendar who is much junior to the 2 petitioner. 13. That the petitioner has came to know that process of appointment of some other similarly situated persons in different Branches of Bank of India is being made out but case of the petitioner is not being considered.” In my view, the pleadings are wholly deficient and/or inadequate to demonstrate that in the matter of grant of permanence/regularization, petitioner has been discriminated against by the respondent Bank. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioner. However, this Court would grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent Bank ventilating his grievance by filing appropriate representation in this regard. The application stands disposed of with the liberty aforesaid. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )