IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01st DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.612 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1 . THE STATE BANK OF INDIA REP. BY ITS CHARIMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR HEAD OFFICE STATE BANK BHAVAN 16TH FLOOR MADAM CAMA ROAD NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI-400 021 REPRESETNED BY RAGHUNANDAN K. ASST. GENERAL MANAGER (HR) 2 . THE STATE BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE-1, NETWORK-1 (E-SBM HEAD OFFICE BUILDING) REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER GROUND FLOOR K.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 009 REPRESENTED BY RAGHUNANDAN K. ASST. GENERAL MANAGER (HR) 3 . THE BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA No.35/18 (OLD No.702) 11TH MAIN ROAD 11TH B MAIN CROSS - 2 (NEAR SRI. RAGHAVENDRA MUTT) JAYANGARA 5TH BLOCK BENGALURU-560 004 REPRESENTED BY RAGHUNANDAN K. ASST. GENERAL MANAGER (HR) 4 . GENERAL MANAGER-HR STATE BANK OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES LOCAL HEAD OFFICE MYSORE BANK BUILDING K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009 REPRESENTED BY RAGHUNANDAN K. ASST. GENERAL MANAGER (HR) ...APPELLANTS (By SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. KRISHNA BAI W/O LATE NARAYANA RAO AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS WORKING AS LUNCH ROOM ATTENDER STATE BANK OF INDIA JAYANAGAR BRANCH 11TH MAIN ROAD 11TH B MAIN CROSS (NEAR SRI. RAGHAVENDRA MUTT) JAYANAGAR 5TH BLOCK BENGALURU-560 041 …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND (a) TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.18238/2021 AND ETC. - 3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 25.07.2025 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) This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.11.2023 in Writ Petition No.18238/2021, which directed as follows: ” 9. In my view, in the present case having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been working in the Bank from 1988, it would be appropriate to direct the Bank to pay her a compensation computed at the rate of Rs.50,000/- for every completed year of service rendered by her. This payment of compensation would be in lieu of her reinstatement/absorption/appointment. Such amount shall be paid to the petitioner within a period two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order." - 4 2. We have heard Shri. T.P Muthanna, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 3. It is an admitted fact that the respondent had been appointed as sweeper cum water woman since 11.05.1988 in the Jayanagar Branch of the erstwhile-State Bank of Hyderabad. Her appointment was approved and she was working as Lunch Room Attender on consolidated wages since 01.02.1990. She had approached this Court filing Writ Petition No.45504/2016 seeking regularization of her services. The said writ petition had been considered and this Court had found that the respondent had been appointed by the competent authority, her appointment had been duly approved and that she had admittedly worked since 1988 in the Bank rendering services on a daily basis. The writ petition was therefore allowed and a mandamus was issued to the competent authority in the Bank to consider the recommendations given in favour of the petitioner for regularization of her services. When no orders were passed thereon, the respondent had approached this Court filing Writ Petition No.18238/2021. While the writ petition was - 5 pending, the representation was rejected by proceedings dated 18.11.2021. 4. The Writ Petitioner amended the writ petition incorporating a challenge to the endorsement dated 18.11.2021 as well. The learned Single Judge considered the writ petition and came to the conclusion that the non- grant of any benefits to an employee who had rendered services for more than 30 years on the ground that there was no sanctioned post is completely unjustifiable. The learned Single Judge held that, since there was no dispute that the petitioner had been working in the Bank from 1988 without giving room for any complaint, the rejection of her claim for regularization could not have the consequence of denying her of all benefits. The Bank was therefore directed to grant her compensation computed at the rate of ₹50,000/- for every completed year of service rendered by her. The compensation would be in lieu of reinstatement/absorption/appointment. - 6 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the respondent would have no claim for regularization of her services since she was not appointed as against a sanctioned post. 6. Having considered the contentions advanced, the pleadings and the materials on record, we are of the clear opinion that there is absolutely no error in the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. We are of the opinion that it is only just and proper that an employee, who had admittedly worked from 1988 onwards is held entitled to some compensation for the long years of labour extracted from her. We are also of the clear opinion that it is the duty of a Constitutional Courts to consider the factual aspects as evident in the instant case and to mould relief so as to give effect to the constitutional mandates and to prevent exploitation of labour. We find no merit in the contentions advanced in the appeal. - 7 7. The appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The amount due shall be disbursed to the petitioner within a month from today. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE cp*