Madras High Court N. Veerappan vs The Chairman And Managing Director on 19 September, 2013 DATED :19/9/2013 C ORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL W.P.No.16147 of 2005 N. Veerappan ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Chairman and Managing Director Punjab & Sind Bank Bank House 21 Rajendra Place New Delhi. 2. The General Manager (Personnel) Punjab & Sind Bank Bank House 21 Rajendra Place New Delhi. 3. The Zonal Manager Punjab & Sind Bank Zonal Office I Floor Spencer Towers 770 A Anna Salai Chennai 2. 4. The Chief Manager Punjab & Sind Bank 770 A Anna Salai Chennai 2. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Indian Constitution for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner. For Petitioner ... Mr.B.Ravi for Mr.R.Subramaniam Mr.V.Bhiman M/s.Sampath Kumar Associates for R.R.1 to 4. O R D E R The Petitioner has filed the instant Writ of Mandamus praying for issuance of an order by this Court in directing the respondents to reglarise his services. 2. The Summary of Facts: The petitioner was working as Driver to drive the Zonal Manager's car from March 1983. The Third Respondent/Zonal Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Chennai was provided with an official car. As per the Staff Circular No.1975 dated 4/11/1989 all the Officers of Scale IV and above were provided with Bank car. Also, the Officers of Scale V and above were allotted with Bank Driver/reimbursement of the Driver's salary, as the case may be. The Drivers wages were paid in terms of Bank guidelines. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is working in the Bank as Driver from March 1983 onwards without any break till date. Indeed, the Third Respondent/Zonal Manager, Madras, recommended the petitioner's name for absorption into permanent rolls of the Bank on numerous occasions (including the letter dated 28/11/2001). 3. The Head Office of the Personnel Department of the First Respondent Bank, with a view to absorb the Petitioner in regular service sought personal details through letters dated 19/5/1997 and 7/6/1997 to which the third respondent sent recommendations for permanency of the petitioner's service through letters dated 19/7/1997, 9/1/1998, 20/2/1999, 12/8/1999, 11/10/1999, 7/1/2000, 21/11/2000, 9/4/2001, 18/8/2001, 10/10/2011 and 28/11/2001 respectively. Since there was no response for his earlier communications, he projected another application for absorption. Presently, he is driving a car provided to the Chief Manager of the Bank at their Mount Road Branch since July 2003. 4. In as much as the respondents had considered the absorption of the petitioner in the permanent rolls of the Bank, he was perforced to file the present writ petition. 5. The gist of the counter filed by the Fourth Respondent (for himself and on behalf of other Respondents): The petitioner was engaged as the personal Driver of the car of Zonal Manager of the First Respondent Bank, Zonal Managers as Scale V Officers and above were reimbursed for the expenses incurred by them in respect of the Personal Drivers whom they could engage in their discretion. 6. The provisions for reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the Bank Officials for keeping Drivers to drive the cars belonging to the Bank and allotted to these Officials would change from time to time. The Driver's salary would be paid by the official concerned personally. Then, he would submit the bill to the Bank and the Bank would reimburse the bill amount. Even the provision of a car by the Bank to its official was not permanent. The petitioner was the personal Driver of the Third Respondent and in January 2004, the then Zonal Manager dispensed with his services. 7. During July 2004, Scale IV Officers were provided with Bank's cars as per the guidelines of the Bank's Head Office and he, as Chief Manager, engaged the services of the petitioner since 24th July 2004. Through the Head Office Circular of the Bank dated 26/4/2005 provision for reimbursement of Driver's salary paid by the Fourth Respondent to his Driver viz., the petitioner was stopped and therefore, he dispensed with his services on 7/5/2005. 8. Continuing further, the absorption of any Driver in a permanent Roll of the Banks staff would be as per Central Government's Guidelines. As on date, no such guidelines was issued. The Respondents had absolutely no power to absorb the petitioner or any Driver in his position, in the Rolls of the Bank staff by regularising his services in any manner. 9. The Petitioner's contentions: The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Respondents should have taken into account of a very vital fact that the Petitioner was worki