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. pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)