The petitioners were appointed as Part Time Sweepers under the 3rd respondent Bank, as per the guidelines issued at Ext.P9. The 3rd respondent Bank, admittedly, has one Head Office and three branches in which the petitioners were engaged. The Government had issued orders evidenced by Exts.P5 and P6 wherein such part-time sweepers were directed to be converted to part-time contingent employees in regular scales of pay as sanctioned by the Government itself. The said benefit has been declined to the petitioners herein, which is the cause of action of the above writ petition. 2. The benefit as per Exts.P5 and P6 was resolved to be granted by the respondent Bank, but, has been denied to the petitioners by virtue of Ext.P8 objection, raised on audit. The Auditor seems to have objected to such pay scales being granted on the ground that the appointments were not, to sanctioned posts. Evidently, Appendix III of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 did not contain the post of part-time sweepers. By Ext.P9 the appointment was permitted to the post of Part-Time sweeper on consolidated salary. It was this appointment which was directed to be converted as part-time contingent service with regular scales of pay by Exts.P5.
3. The issue has been squarely considered in Ext.P14 judgment wherein the Bank/employer therein, had objected to such grant of regular pay scales. This Court on reference to Appendix III and Rule 118 found that there is no restriction as such from making appointments to the post which are not shown in the Appendix and the only requirement is the sanction from the Registrar. In Ext.P14, two circulars of the Registrar being circular No.13/2011 dated 07.02.2011 and 11/99 dated 23.03.1999 were relied upon by the respondent Bank to contend that the appointments were bad. The circular of 1999 regulated the procedure for appointment to various posts in the Co-operative Societies and it was found that only after 2011 Circular came, the said regulations were made applicable to appointment of part- time sweepers. The issuance of the circular of 2011, was specifically for reason of there being no modalities for appointment of part-time sweepers. Therein the part- time sweeper, who claimed a pay scale as part-time contingent employee, was appointed in 1993, earlier to the said circular of 2011. Herein, the first petitioner was appointed on 14.06.1999, the second petitioner on 01.01.2000, third petitioner on 01.03.2010 and the fourth petitioner on 19.03.2011. It cannot be said that the appointment so made were without following the regulations aforementioned, since those regulations were not available at that point of time.
4. Exts.P5 and P6 orders produced herein were produced and marked as Ext.R5(c) and R5(b), in Ext.P14 judgment. The facts being more or less similar, the benefits of the said circular and pay revision orders have to be granted to the petitioner. There would be a direction to so grant the benefits of Exts.P5 and P6 the petitioners. In such circumstance, the audit objections are of no consequence. Writ petition is allowed.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge