1. Through the medium of the instant petition, filed under the
provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners
have sought the issuance of a direction upon the respondents in the
nature of mandamus for commanding them to offer/issue the
WP (C) 1942/2020 c/w CCP (S) no. 54/2021
necessary appointment orders in their (petitioners’) favour in terms
of “Policy of Absorption” of the Bank so that being figuring at
serial numbers 5, 12, & 22 in the select list, are treated at par with
the other selectees similarly situated.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they are the permanent
residents of the erstwhile J&K State (now UT) and the bonafide
citizens of the country, as such have a right to move this court –
invoking its writ jurisdiction for vindication of their constitutional
and other statutory rights. That they have not filed any other writ
petition before any other court of law in respect of the subject
matter involved in this petition and have also no other alternate or
efficacious remedy available for redressal of their grievances. That
they came to be engaged by respondent-bank in its various branches
as casual workers (sweepers) long back. That the petitioner No.1
was engaged directly by respondent-bank in RSTI, Pulwama on
11.07.2011 and continued to serve directly under the command of
the respondent-bank till December 2012, subsequent to which his
services were utilized by the respondent-bank through its
outsourcing Agency. That likewise petitioner No.2 was also
engaged by respondents on 28.02.2014 as a casual worker at its
Muran Ada Branch whose services also came to be utilized by
Bank through its outsourcing Agency w.e.f 01.03.2015. That
likewise petitioner No.3 was also engaged directly by Bank on
26.12.2012, who also came to serve the Respondent-Bank through
its outsourcing Agency with effect from 30.07.2014. That the
Respondent-Bank conceived an “Absorption Policy” and decided to
WP (C) 1942/2020 c/w CCP (S) no. 54/2021
offer contractual engagements to it’s casual workers engaged before
30.09.2017, with the regularization of those among them who have
put in their 10 years continuous service as such. That in furtherance
of the directions of the Corporate office of the Bank, information
regarding casual labourers working all across the branches of the
Bank came to be prepared and consolidated at the Zonal Head
Quarter levels of the Bank for taking necessary action in terms of
the policy. That the information was required to be submitted to the
Corporate Head Quarter also in the form of individual certificates
on a prescribed format duly attested by three senior most officers of
the concerned branch/section. That accordingly, the particulars of all
the petitioners came to be prepared and certificates on prescribed
format issued in their favour after due verification and enquiry
alongwith hundreds of similarly situated casual workers engaged
prior to 30.09.2017. That their cases were not forwarded in time to
the competent authority due to non-availability of officers concerned
owning to which fact their cases got delayed. That other candidates
similarly situated whose names were forwarded in time got
interviewed when the petitioners were kept waiting in a queue. That
after the concerned officers became available, the cases of the
petitioners were also forwarded to higher authorities, whereafter
they were interviewed and do figure in the select list of the
candidates eligible for contractual engagements. That subsequently
the respondents issued contractual engagement orders in favour of
other candidates excepting the petitioners. That even the candidates
who were engaged subsequent to the petitioners came to be issued
WP (C) 1942/2020 c/w CCP (S) no. 54/2021
the contractual engagement orders to the discrimination of the
petitioners. That they have spent all their life serving the
Respondent-Bank as Sweepers and now they are not being treated at
par in respect of benefit of the Bank’s “absorption policy”. That
they have submitted all the original documents before the
respondents as per the directions, besides furnishing their police
verification reports. That they are running from pillar to post in the
Bank for the last so many years and they are being ensured that
their cases are in progress and the necessary orders will be issued
very soon. That the action of the Respondent-Bank in withholding
the engagement orders in favour of the petitioners tent-amounts to
the violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed to them under
Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
[ad_1]
Source link