Mohd. Abdullah Bhat @APPELLANT@Hash State Bank Of India And Another

In this petition, petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for a direction to respondents to allow him to discharge his duties as Sweeper in SBI Branch, Prem Nagar, Doda and not to replace him by any other person as Sweeper on daily rated/daily wage basis.

The facts of this case lie in a very narrow compass. The petitioner claims that he was engaged as Sweeper on daily rated basis in the respondent bank in Prem Nagar Branch on 29.10.1991. Initially, he was paid the wages @ Rs.13.50 per day; thereafter, the same came to be enhanced from time to time. Reference in this regard has been invited by the petitioner to the copy of Petty Charges Register maintained by respondent No.2, which substantiate the factual assertion made by the petitioner that he has been in continuous service of the respondent bank since the year 1991. Further, the contention of the petitioner is that though he had been performing his duties regularly to the best satisfaction of the respondents, yet, a few months prior to the filing of this petition, the attitude of the respondent bank towards the petitioner changed. On inquiry, claims the petitioner, it was found that the Branch Manager had for ulterior consideration committed with someone else to engage his services as Sweeper in place of the petitioner. The petitioner was also asked to hand over the keys of the bank on 04.10.2014. It is claimed that for performing the job of Sweeper, the petitioner had been holding the custody of the keys of the bank for the last 23 years.

In the background of aforesaid facts, the petitioner has, in nutshell, submitted that he being in the continuous service of the respondent bank for the last 23 years cannot be without any reason or justification, disengaged so as to replace him by similar arrangement.

The respondent have filed their reply in which stand taken is that there never existed any relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondent at any point of time. It is claimed that he had been working intermittently as part time Sweeper and also providing housekeeping service to the bank. He even abandoned his part time service in the year 2010 and contested the election of the Sarpanch of his area. The engagement of the petitioner as Sweeper since the year 1991, however, has not been specifically denied. What is denied in the objections is the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his service. It is further submitted by the respondents in their objections that pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender issued by the competent authority on 07.07.2014, the services of a private contractor have been solicited. The quotation of one M/s Charan Dass Madan Lal has been approved for providing housekeeping services in the branches of the answering respondents and it is for the contractor to depute the  persons engaged by it to provide housekeeping service to the branch of the answering respondent as well.

The response affidavit on behalf of the petitioner has also been filed in which the petitioner has explained the circumstances under which M/s Charan Dass Madan Lal have been shown to have been engaged for providing of housekeeping services to the bank branch in question.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I find that the petitioner has been performing the duties of Sweeper since the year 1991. May be on certain occasions, there had been break in service for one reason or the other, but, indisputably the work of cleaning the branch is being done by the petitioner for the last several years on the payment of minimum wages. The petitioner has not prayed for regularization of his services. The only contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that he is being replaced by some other arrangement without any reason or justification and without even giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner to explain his position. There could be no exception to what is urged on behalf of the petitioner in this regard. Being the part time worker, rendering his services on daily wage basis, the petitioner may not be entitled to regularization of his services as Sweeper but his services cannot be arbitrarily dispensed with to pave way for the adjustment of a person in the similar arrangement. Such exercise of power by the respondents if not supported by any reason or justification is on the face of it, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. If there is serious misconduct of the petitioner in performing his duties or that he is not doing his duties well with punctuality, it is open to the respondents to dispense with his services provided the petitioner is put on notice and afforded a reasonable opportunity to explain his position. The respondents are not private employers or contractors, who can probably follow the policies of "hire and fire". Any exercise of power, which is arbitrary, is antithetic to right of equality as envisages in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

From the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties as Sweeper in SBI Branch, Prem Nagar, Doda and not to replace him by any other person engaged under the similar arrangement. Nothing, however, shall come in the way of the respondents to fill up the post of Sweeper on substantive basis by making recruitment after following a regular selection process. The respondent would also be well within their rights to dispense with the services of the petitioner if while performing his duties, the petitioner commits any act or omission unbecoming of an employee. In such situation, the petitioner shall only be entitled to be heard in the matter before passing any adverse order. With these observations, this petition is disposed of along with connected MP(s).