IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.126 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA CENTRAL OFFICE MADAM CAMA ROAD BACKBAY RECLAMATION MUMBAI-400 021 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 2. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA LOCAL HEAD OFFICE No.65, ST. MARKS ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 3. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER CIRCLE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER STATE BANK OF INDIA No.65, St. MARKS ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. C.K. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.C. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SHIVAIAH S/O BHATTACHARYA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS C/O. DEVI DARSHAN - 2 1(a). No.14, 4TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU-560 018 SINCE DEAD, REP. BY HIS LRS. R. KALYANI W/O LATE SHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT No.26, C.T. BED ROAD NEAR VIDYAPEETHA CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 058 1(b). S. PAVITHRA D/O LATE SHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT No.26, C.T. BED ROAD NEAR VIDYAPEETHA CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 058 1(c). VIKRAM S. S/O LATE SHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT No.26, C.T. BED ROAD NEAR VIDYAPEETHA CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 058 1(d). SMT. PARVATHAMMA M/O FIRST RESPONDENT AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS R/AT. GALIGENAHALLI CHIKSARANG POST TUMAKURU TALUK-572 118 2. S. MURALIDHARA S/O SIDDA SHETTY D. AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT H.No.4795/2 2ND CROSS, TANK ROAD, N.R. MOHALLA MYSURU-570 007 3. P. PRAKASH S/O T.B. MADIWAL AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS - 3 R/AT. AKSHAYA BALE KUDURU VILLAGE HANAGAR KATTE POST UDUPI TALUK UDUPI-576 218 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. NARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.09.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.8236/2011 (S-RES) AND REJECT THE WRIT PETITION. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 02.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) The present writ appeal is filed challenging the order dated 14.09.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.8236/2011 (S-RES). 2. We have heard Shri C.K. Subramanya, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri M. Narayana Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the respondents were appointed on ad hoc - 4 basis to tide over immediate necessities purely on temporary basis as sub-staff from 17.05.1994. They were not engaged against regular, permanent and sanctioned vacancies at branches of the Appellant’s Bank. Therefore, these temporary engagements did not confer any right to seek continuation or absorption on the rolls of the Bank. In the year 2009, the respondents filed Writ Petitions No.3247- 49/2009 and sought for a direction to the Bank to consider their representation for absorption and extend the benefits that have been extended to one Sri. H.A. Manjunath. The said Writ Petitions were rejected on 02.11.2009, with an observation that the regularization is impermissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, though the Bank was free to consider their representations. Respondents have challenged the said order in Writ Appeals No.4050/2009 and 1476-77/2010. The coordinate bench of this Court vide its order dated 21.04.2010, ordered the Bank to consider the representations without being influenced by prior observations. - 5 4. It is submitted that the Bank has considered the representations for absorption and passed a detailed speaking order on 09.03.2011, rejecting the request for absorption. The Bank clarified in its order that Manjunath’s case was a special instance of absorption due to a judicial suggestion after long pendency of his writ petition from the year 1996, and it could not be treated as a precedent for automatic absorption. Dissatisfied, the respondents challenged this rejection in Writ Petitions No.8236-38/2011, which was initially rejected by the learned Single Judge on 02.03.2012, with liberty to approach the appropriate forum. The said order dated 02.03.2012 was challenged in Writ Appeals No.1403-05/2012, the coordinate bench of this Court by an order dated 08.08.2012 allowed the writ appeal and remanded the matter back to the learned Single Judge to consider the Writ Petition on merits. 5. On 14.09.2023, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the Bank and held that the petitioners were to be treated as regular Bank employees, entitled to all the - 6 benefits, including retrial benefits, on par with the regular employees. Further it held that this decision was based on the peculiar facts and circumstances particularly, in the Bank’s own appointment orders which had indicated the petitioners would be “permanently absorbed at a later date". Aggrieved by the said order the appellants are now before this Court. 6. In support of the contentions, he has relied on the following decisions:- • Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors v. Umadevi and Ors reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1; • State of Karnataka and Ors v. M.L. Kesari and Ors, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247; • Hari Nandan Prasad and Ors v. Employer I/R to Management of FCI and Ors, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 190; • The State of Bihar and Ors v. Devendra Sharma, reported in (2020) 15 SCC 466, and • Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Ors., reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the contentions now raised by - 7 the appellants had been raised before the learned Single Judge and had been considered in the judgment under appeal. It is contended that the case of the respondents is identical to that of Manjunath, whose services already stood regularized. It is submitted that the respondents and Manjunath were appointed on the same terms and that the benefit given to Manjunath could not be denied to the respondents. Further, it is contended the very fact that the respondents are continuously working from 17.05.1994 would show that there are regular vacancies in existence and that the services of the respondents are essential for the Bank. 8. In support of his contentions, he has relied on the following citations:- • Union of India and Others v. Shantamma [W.P No 17031/2021 and connected matter dated 06.03.2025]; • Jaggo v. Union of India and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; • Vinod Kumar and Others v. Union of India and Others, reported in 2024 (9) SCC 327, and - 8 • Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others, reported in 2018 (8) SCC 238. 9. We have considered the contentions advanced. It is an admitted fact that the respondents are in continuous service from 17.05.1994. It is therefore apparent that their services are required by the Bank. Persons, who have entered the service of the Bank along with the respondents on identical terms, have been granted the benefit of regularisation in service. The appellants have no case that the respondents are in any way unqualified or ineligible for appointment to the posts held by them. 10. It was after considering all the contentions advanced on either side, that the learned Single Judge had directed the writ petitioners would be entitled to fixity of tenure as well as service benefits as applicable to regular employees. The learned Single Judge had also considered the fact that the Bank had thought it fit to extend regular pay scale to the respondents herein. A memo filed on 24.08.2023 by the Bank was specifically noticed by the learned Single Judge. - 9 11. Having considered the contentions advanced and the materials on record, we are of the opinion that there is no patent illegality in the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, which requires any interference in this intra- Court appeal. The writ appeal fails, the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE cp*