Regularisation upheld for long-serving employees despite irregular appointments.

The Bank appealed a common order dated 16 March 2021 allowing a batch of writ petitions and directing regularisation of the petitioners within two months, failing which they would be treated as regular employees after that period.

The Bank filed its appeal out of time, and its counsel did not press the application for condonation of delay.

The respondents relied on a 22 July 2021 order showing that the Bank had regularised Santosh Sanodhiya before filing the appeal.

The Bank relied on a 2024 enquiry report finding appointments and promotions irregular or illegal. The Court noted that no action had been taken against the responsible officers, that the employees remained in service, and that the Bank’s Board and the Joint Registrar had recommended regularisation.

Whether the common order directing regularisation warranted appellate interference, despite the Bank’s failure to press its application for condonation of delay.

Whether the enquiry report and the asserted irregularity of the appointments justified setting aside the direction to regularise the employees.

The Court referred to State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, for the distinction that irregular appointments may be regularised, whereas illegal appointments may not.

It also relied on observations attributed to Jaggo v. Union of India concerning the exploitation and insecurity of temporary employees, including the misuse of temporary classifications for essential and recurring work and the denial of employment benefits.

The Court declined to interfere with the writ court’s order. It noted that the appeal was delayed and the Bank did not press its condonation application.

On the merits, the enquiry report did not lead to action against the officers identified as responsible, while the employees continued in service and had received recommendations for regularisation from the Bank’s Board and the Joint Registrar.

The Court also noted that the Bank had already regularised one respondent before filing the appeal.

In light of those circumstances and the principles concerning irregular appointments and the treatment of temporary employees, it found no basis to disturb the writ court’s direction.

The direction to regularise the writ petitioners therefore remained undisturbed.