Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Rendering Service in Temporary Post More Than 240 Days Sufficient for Absorption 2011 Sc

Rendering Service in Temporary Post More Than 240 Days Sufficient for Absorption 2011 Sc

Ratings: (0)|Views: 73|Likes:
…………………………….J.
(Asok Kumar Ganguly)
…………………………….J.
(Jagdish Singh Khehar)
…………………………….J.
(Asok Kumar Ganguly)
…………………………….J.
(Jagdish Singh Khehar)

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/29/2013

pdf

text

original

 
“NON-REPORTABLE”IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONSPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.10845 of 2009
H.S. Rajashekara. Petitione
 
VersusState Bank of Mysore & Anr.. Respondents
J U D G M E N TJAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J
.1.The petitioner herein was inducted into the service of the State Bankof Mysore (hereinafter referred to as, the Bank) as a temporary Sub-Staff in 1985. He was intermittently taken into employment based on the needfor such staff. During the year 1994-95, he claims to have rendered morethan 240 days of service in a calendar year. Based thereon, he claimedthat he be included in the “protected categoryof employees. Havingsatisfied the “protected categorycriteria, the petitioner applied foabsorption as a permanent employee, by citing the example of oneDevaraju, by addressing representations to the Bank. It is also thecontention of the petitioner, that the employees union of the Bank alsoaddressed a communication dated 13.12.1997 to the management of the
1
 
Bank requiring it to absorb the petitioner as a permanent employee. Sincethe representations made by the petitioner, and recommendation made bythe employees union of the Bank, did not result in any consideration at thehands of the Bank, the petitioner approached the High Court of Karnataka(hereinafter referred to as, the High Court) by filing a Writ Petition beingW.P. No. 45932 of 1999. The aforesaid Writ Petition came to be disposedof by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 14.12.2004. In thisbehalf, it would be relevant to mention, that the High Court did not examinethe merits of the controversy raised by the petitioner. Rather than doingthat, the High Court directed the Bank to take a decision on therepresentation made by the petitioner by passing a written order. TheBank was also directed to communicate the same to the petitioner.2.The bank, while examining the claim raised by the petitioner, noticedthe contention of the petitioner as under:-(i)He has worked in several branches in Mysore during theperiod 1985 to 1997.(ii)During 8.7.1994 to 30.8.1995, he has served for 292 days.(iii)State Bank of Mysore Employees Union has recommendedhim to be employed on permanent basis. He has givenapplications in this regard.(iv)He has passed SSLC.(v)One of his colleagues, one Shri Devaraju has also passedSSLC and he has been given employment on permanentbasis. Therefore, he has prayed for passing of suitable
2
 
order of appointment in his favour equivalent to the jobgiven to one Shri Devaraju.”Despite the aforesaid pleas raised at the hands of the petitioner, the Bankby an order dated 24.8.2005, rejected the petitioner’s claim for absorptionas a permanent employee. Two reasons were indicated in the order dated24.8.2005 for not accepting the petitioner’s claim. It was found, that thepetitioner had not worked for 240 days in a calendar year, and that, he hadqualified the SSLC examination. The petitioner approached the High Courtyet again, to impugn the order dated 24.8.2005. At this juncture, thepetitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 22324 of 2005. Having dealt with thecontroversy raised by the petitioner, the High Court by its order dated13.11.2007, held that the petitioner was not entitled to absorption as apermanent employee. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing WritPetition No. 22324 of 2005 acknowledged, that the petitioner had workedfor 292 days from 8.7.1994 to 30.8.1995. Despite the aforesaid, the HighCourt was of the view, that the petitioner could not be given the benefitclaimed by him. This conclusion was drawn because the service for 240days in a “calendar year”, was to be determined with reference to servicerendered between the 1
st
day of January of a particular year, upto 31
st
dayof December of the same year. Examined on the basis of the aforesaidparameters, it was concluded, that the petitioner had not render service for a period of 240 days in a “calendar year”. It was also sought to be
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->