Heard Mr. Singh, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Chudgar, learned advocate for the respondent - Bank.
2. It is informed that the petitioner is working as casual employee with the respondent No.1 Bank. It is also clarified that the petitioner has worked for 240 days in every calender year. The petitioner has also claimed that he is working since last more than 10 years with the respondent Bank.
3. It appears that an advertisement came to be issued by the respondent Bank somewhere in April-2011 inviting applications for the post of Sweeper/Peon. As per the eligibility criterion prescribed in the said advertisement, the upper age limit was 26 years as on 12.4.2011.
3.1 The petitioner has claimed that he made an application offering his candidature in support of the said advertisement and that he was orally informed that age relaxation would be given to the casual employees also though this was not clarified in the advertisement. The petitioner has claimed that subsequently, the petitioner learnt that his case has not been considered on the ground that he had crossed the upper age limit. In this background, the petitioner has preferred present petition.
4. Mr.
Singh, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on an order dated 22.9.2011 passed in Special Civil Application No.12290 of 2011 and other connected matters. He submitted that the said petitions were preferred by persons similarly situated. He claimed that the petitioner requests for similar order.
5. Mr.
Chudgar, learned advocate for the respondent Bank, has submitted that if similar order is passed, then, the respondent Bank has no objection. He submitted that the respondent Bank will consider petitioner's case in light of the directions issued vide order dated 22.9.2011 in Special Civil Application No.12290 of 2011 and other connected matters.
6. In the said case, viz. Special Civil Application No.12290 of 2011 and other connected matters, the Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anant S. Dave) has passed below mentioned directions:-
"5. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the grievance of the petitioners and take decision by keeping in mind the order dated.15.11.2010 passed by the Division Bench of Orissa High Court. It is also observed that in case, if the above order of the Orissa High Court is accepted by Zonal Office of the Bank of India, Bhubhaneshwar the respondent authority shall scrutinize and verify the individual record of the petitioners about completion of 10 years of continuous service with the respondent and decide the grievance of the petitioners keeping in mind the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi [supra], more particularly para 53 of the judgment."
7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent Bank and considering the concession given by the learned advocate for the respondent Bank, i.e. if similar order and directions are passed, the respondent Bank would act accordingly, below mentioned directions are issued:-
7.1 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent - competent authority is directed to consider the request of the petitioner and take appropriate and necessary decision.
7.2 While considering the case of the petitioner, the respondent - competent authority will keep in focus the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the Division Bench of Orissa High Court. The respondent Bank shall scrutinize and verify the record of the petitioner, particularly as to whether the petitioner has actually completed continues service for 10 years or not and upon being satisfied of the said factual aspect, the respondent bank shall, after taking other relevant aspects into consideration and keeping into focus the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi [(2006)4 SCC 1, more particularly para 53 of the said judgment, take necessary and appropriate action.
7.3 The decision may be taken within period of 3 months after the service of certified copy of present order.
With the aforesaid observations, clarifications and directions, present petition stands disposed of. Notice is discharged.
It is clarified that the above mentioned order is passed after considering the submissions made by Mr. Chudgar, learned advocate for the respondent - Bank.
Direct service is permitted.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc Top