IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13102 of 2004 1. Ram Binay Singh, son of Shri Nalish Singh, Resident of Village- Makhdumpur Kabir, P.S.- Arwal, district- Arwal. Versus 1. The State Bank Of India through its Assistant General Manager. 2. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Region-IV, Zonal Office, Fraser Road, Patna- 800001. 3. The Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Fraser Road, Patna- 800001. 4. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Region-2, Fraser road, Patna. 5. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India,Region- IV, Fraser Road, Patna. 6. The Head Manager L.H.O., State Bank of India,Patna (West of Gandhi Maidan). 7. The Deputy General Manager State Bank of India, J.C. Road, Patna. 8. The Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, Arwal. -------- Respondent ----------- 6 04.07.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State Bank Of India. The petitioner has claimed his regularization as Class – IV employee, as he has been working since 02.03.1996 as a canteen boy in the State Bank of India, Arwal Branch. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is still working as a canteen boy on payment of daily wages. The payment receipts have been brought on record as Annexure-3. It is submitted that as per the bipartite agreement dated 27.10.1988 and 09.01.1991 the petitioner is entitled for absorption. Annexure-5 reflects that the authorities, on 11th of August, 1999, asked for the particulars of all such temporary employees who were put to more than 240 days of continuous service in terms of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act along with recommendations and in pursuance to that, the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Arwal recommended the absorption of the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner has worked for 462 days for which the payments were made either by cash or by account payee cheque. Out of 462 days, the petitioner worked as sweeper from 01.09.1997 to 31.07.1998 and still he is working as canteen boy. The letter of recommendation stipulates that the petitioner has also worked as a messenger. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that similarly situated other persons were absorbed, whereas the claim of the petitioner has been kept pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner also filed the photocopy of the certified copy of the order passed in C.W.J.C. 9534 of 2010 (Kanhaiya Chaudhary Vs. The Managing Director, State Bank of India through its Zonal Manager and Ors.) and C.W.J.C. 11805 of 2010 (Barun Kumar Vs. State Bank of India, through its Chief General Manager and Ors.) whereby, the claim of the canteen boy for absorption has been allowed in following terms:- “Accordingly, this Court directs the competent authority of the Bank to consider the case of the petitioner of the two writ applications along with all other eligible persons for absorption in the light of the circular dated 06.04.1991 taking into account the past service rendered by them, as early as possible, in any case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the competent authority of the Bank. The writ applications are, accordingly, disposed of”. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Bank that the petitioner cannot claim regularization as per the Bank Service Regulations, which is limited to the extent of regularizing the bank employees only and since the petitioner was only a canteen boy, he cannot to be treated as temporary or casual employee of the State Bank of India, Arwal Branch. Moreover, the petitioner unlike the other employees, was paid out of the staff welfare funds of the Local Implementation Committee for his services in the canteen at the Arwal Branch. It is also contended in the counter affidavit that petitioner's Bank account and his attendance were maintained and regulated by Local Implementation Committee and the Bank has nothing to do with the aforesaid facts. The recommendation, as contained in Annexure- 1, has not been denied by the respondent Bank, rather it has been admitted in the counter affidavit that the petitioner worked from 01.09.1997 to 31.07.1998. Considering the rival contentions, it is apparent that the respondent Bank has not controverted the recommendation for regularization of the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-1, which stipulates that the petitioner worked as sweeper from 01.09.1997 to 31.07.1998 and at the time of recommendation, he was working as a canteen boy and he also worked as a messenger in the Bank on several occasions. Hence, on the own admission of the Bank, the petitioner cannot be treated to be working as a canteen boy only. This Court, while considering the case of other similarly situated persons, considered the circular of the Bank dated 06.04.1991, which was issued by the Personnel Department of the Bank in pursuance to bipartite agreement dated 27.10.1998 and 09.01.1991, providing for absorption of temporary employees, directed to consider the case of similarly situated persons. Accordingly, this Court directs the respondent Bank Authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption in the light of Circular dated 06.04.1991, taking into account the past service rendered by the petitioner, as early as possible, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order In view of this Court the case of the petitioner also ought to have been considered in the light of the general direction rendered in C.W.J.C. 9534 of 2010. Accordingly, the writ application is disposed off. Amrendra/- (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)