Judgment :- Tapan Sen, J. These two Appeals arise out of a common Order dated October 9, 2002 passed by learned single Judge of this Court in two vv petitions being (1) W.P. No. 7586 (W)/19' Md. Momtaj Hossain v. Bank of India and Others Durgapur and (2) W.P. No.7659 (W)/1999 Om Prakash Balmiky v. Chairman Bank of India, Mumbai and Others where and whereunder both the writ petitions we] disposed of with a direction upon the Bank of India to consider, in accordance with law and in terms of the available schemes for regularization of casual workers, the case pertaining to the regularization of the two writ petitioners with a further direction that so Ion as they were not so considered, they would continue under the "present working arrangement." 2. The learned single Judge also directed the respondent Bank to release all arrears of salary from February 1999 till date as early as possible and preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the Order. 3. Being aggrieved, the Bank has filed these two Appeals through its Zonal Manager as well as the Branch Manager (respondent Nos. 2 and 4 in both the connected writ petitions). 4. In F.M.A. No. 272/2003 (which pertains to W.P. No. 7586 (W)/1999), the facts as pleaded in the writ petition, are that the petitioner (Md. Momtaj Hossain) is said to have been "appointed" as a Caretaker-cum-Pump Operator on and from the April 26, 1983 on a consolidated monthly salary of Rs. 350/- per month. However, in Para 2 of the writ petition, he stated that his "contract of employment were implied" and that "no appointment letter had been issued" and that "he was engaged as a causal hand" and drawing salary through vouchers till December 1998. 5. He further stated that prior to his appointment, he had applied before the then Branch Manager, Sri Sankar Kr. Roy Chowdhury who had interviewed and taken his practical test, to the best of his memory, on April 26, 1983 and being satisfied, the said Branch Manager had fixed a lump sum remuneration of Rs. 350/- per month. It was since then the petitioner started and continued working as a Pump Caretaker. 6. Roy Chowdhury who had interviewed and taken his practical test, to the best of his memory, on April 26, 1983 and being satisfied, the said Branch Manager had fixed a lump sum remuneration of Rs. 350/- per month. It was since then the petitioner started and continued working as a Pump Caretaker. 6. His further case before the Writ Court was that he used to get his salary from the Branch Manager without putting any signature on the acquittance roll but subsequently, with the coming into Office of another Branch Manager, he had to sign on a voucher in token of receipt of his monthly remunerations. This arrangement continued till December 1998 but from January 1999, the Branch Manager asked the petitioner to accept salary without any signature on any vouchers. The petitioner expressed his inability to accede and therefore, his salary from the month of January 1999 came to be stopped. According to him, he is living in a Staff Quarter of the Bank of India in Flat No. B-1 situated in Bank Colony, Durgapur in the ground floor right from the time of his entry into service and is still continuing to reside therein. His children are also living in the said accommodation and are receiving education at Durgapur. His further case was that after making repeated representations (collectively marked Annexure "A" to the writ petition), the initial salary of Rs. 350/-per month which was fixed at the time of his "appointment", was subsequently raised to Rs. 600/- per month and then to Rs. 900/- per month. 7. The petitioner further stated that his duty hours start from morning and end at night and that he does the job of operating the pump for the supply of water and for the supply of drinking water to the residences of the staff in the colony. He also does the job of cleaning and looks after each and every corner of the staff colony round the clock in addition to his job of looking after the safety and security of the residences for sum of Rs. 900/- per month. 8. His further case before the Writ Court was based on discrimination and unequal treatment between himself and other similarly situated employees. 900/- per month. 8. His further case before the Writ Court was based on discrimination and unequal treatment between himself and other similarly situated employees. According to him, while other employees performing his duties, are given scales of pay as well as facilities of leave such as medical leave, earned leave and causal leave, he is deprived of these benefits save and expect being paid the consolidated monthly salary of Rs. 900/-p.m. plus one month's leave with pay in a year which is also not granted as a matter of right but is granted at the discretion and pleasure of the local authority. He also stated that unlike other employees doing similar nature of jobs, he is deprived of benefits such as bonus, medical reimbursement, annual increments, gratuity, provident fund etc. 9. According to him, the duties preformed by him are incidental and connected with the main job of the Bank and includes the operating of the pump house as a result of which the employees of the Bank are able to get water and therefore, he is an integral part of the main function of the Bank. 10. He made several representations, both oral and written to the local authorities of the Bank as well as to the higher authorities vide representations dated August 4, 1997, September 9, 1997, December 4, 1997, February 19, 1998, March 4, 1998, March 5, 1998 and on April 9, 1999 (collectively marked "Annexure "B" to the writ petition ), but to no avail. 11. Thereafter, he moved the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal, Durgapur ventilating his grievances as a result of which on July 23, 1998, the said Authority sent a letter (marked Annexure "C" to the writ petition) to the Manager, Bank of India asking him for his comments within 10 days, on the issues raised by the petitioner to the effect that he, being the caretaker of the Bank, had not been favoured with the issuance of any appointment letter and was being paid very poor salary. 12. In spite of the aforesaid, no response came from the said Bank and therefore, the petitioner reported the matter even to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central, Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide his letter dated September 4, 1998 (marked Annexure "D" to the writ petition) but again, he did not get any relief. 13. 12. In spite of the aforesaid, no response came from the said Bank and therefore, the petitioner reported the matter even to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central, Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide his letter dated September 4, 1998 (marked Annexure "D" to the writ petition) but again, he did not get any relief. 13. In the background of the aforementioned facts, the petitioner then filed the writ petition being W.P. No 7586(W)/1999 wherein he prayed, inter alia, for an Order directing the authorities of the Bank to treat him as a regular Class IV employee w.e.f April 26, 1983 and for an Order restraining them from terminating his services or from evicting him from his quarter. The petitioner also prayed for regularization of his services on the post of a Pump Operator under the regular establishment of the Bank w.e.f. April 26, 1983 (i.e. the date on he was engaged on such post). The petitioner also prayed for an Order for the release of his salary w.e.f. January 1999 onwards through voucher in the same manner as was being done since 1983 and also for payment of the difference of pay on the post of a Pump Operator with effect from April 26, 1983. 14. In their Affidavit-in-opposition, the appellants, through their Zonal Manager, Kolkata Zone (respondent No. 2 in the writ petition), stated that the writ petition was thoroughly misconceived and that the petitioner had no right nor any legal right to pray for the reliefs as sought for in the writ petition. In para-10 of the said Affidavit-in-opposition, the Bank denied that the petitioner was "appointed" as a Caretaker-cum-Pump Operator on April 26, 1983 or on any other day on a consolidated salary/remuneration of Rs. 350/- per month, as alleged. 15. They however stated that in order to provide accommodation to the employees, 42 (forty-two) Staff-quarters had been constructed in 5(five) buildings at Durgapur in the year 1982 and, in order to ensure proper services, a Committee had been constituted comprising of the occupants of the said quarters and it was the said Committee which had engaged the petitioner as a Pump Operator-cum-Watchman. They further stated that the job of a Pump-operator-cum-watchman was not connected with business of the Bank and that no commercial activities of the Bank took place from the said buildings. They further stated that the job of a Pump-operator-cum-watchman was not connected with business of the Bank and that no commercial activities of the Bank took place from the said buildings. They also stated that it was the said Committee which used to pay the wages initially at Rs. 350/-per month but from 1987, it was enhanced to Rs.500/- per month and then to Rs.900/- per month from the year 1990. It was further stated that the wages used to be reimbursed by the Bank to the Committee. 16. In para-11 of their Affidavit-inopposition, the appellants then stated that after a period of time, the aforesaid Committee became defunct and thereafter, the wages of the petitioner were paid by obtaining his signature on vouchers of the concerned Branch of the Bank. They also stated that since the petitioner's job was not connected with the main job of the Bank, the question of granting any leave facilities or other benefits given to other employees did not arise. 17. The petitioner, in Para-4 of his Affidavit-in-reply, stated that right from the date of his appointment as a Caretaker-cumpump-operator under the Bank of India, he was paid salary by the Manager of the Durgapur Branch through vouchers till 1998 and in support of such a contention, the vouchers dated October 6, 1993 and October 31, 1997 showing payment of salary @ Rs. 900 for the months of September 1993 and October 1997, were brought on record marked as Annexure "R." These two payment vouchers read as follows: "Bank of India Durgapur Branch Code No. 4230 Debit Note Date : October 31, 1997 Head Office. Branch/Code No. 0000 Debit Note Dept. Estate No. 52142 Being the amount of payment made to M. Hossain for the month of October, 1997 for working as Watchman-cum-Pump Operator at staff quarter Rs. 900 / - (Rupees Nine Hundred Only). Sd/- Illegible" "Bank Of India Durgapur Branch Code No. 4230 Date : October 1, 1993 Head Office : Branch (Code No. 0/0/0/0) Dept. Estate Department No. 147018 Being the amount paid to Mr. Mamtaj Hossain for the month of September, 1993 for working as Watchman-cum-Pump Operator at staff quarters, Durgapur. Encl. One Rs. 900/- (Rupees : Nine Hundred only.) Trans Cashier Accountant: Sd/- Illegible" (Quoted as it appears in the Paper Book) 18. Estate Department No. 147018 Being the amount paid to Mr. Mamtaj Hossain for the month of September, 1993 for working as Watchman-cum-Pump Operator at staff quarters, Durgapur. Encl. One Rs. 900/- (Rupees : Nine Hundred only.) Trans Cashier Accountant: Sd/- Illegible" (Quoted as it appears in the Paper Book) 18. The petitioner further stated that he had filed various Applications before the Branch Manager for enhancement of his salary from Rs. 350/- p.m. to Rs. 2500/-p.m. and in those representations/applications, he had also prayed for additional benefits that were provided to other Class-IV employees but not to him. These Applications and/or Representations were also sent to the Zonal Manager, Regional Manager as well as to the other Authorities and it was pursuant thereto, that the Authorities enhanced his salary from Rs. 350/- to Rs. 900/- per month. The petitioner has also relied upon Annexure R-4 appended to his Affidavit-in-reply being a copy of a Certificate issued by the Manager, Bank of India on January 1, 1997, Certifying that the petitioner had been employed by the Manager, Bank of India, Staff Quarter, Durgapur as their "Pumpset operator" where he was working with full satisfaction for the last 15 years. The said Certificate reads as follows: "To Whom It May Concern This is to certify that Sri Mumtaj Hossain. son of Sri Samiruddin Hossain of Vill. Islam Dist.-Malda, is known to me for the last fifteen years. So far as I know he is possessing good moral character. Moreover. I am pleased to inform you that he has beer employed by the manager of Bank of Indiz Staff Quarter, Durgapur as their pump set operator, where he is working with full satisfaction for last fifteen years. I found him to be an intelligent and industrious man. I consider him suitable for such type of post and strongly recommending for_ consideration. For Bank of India Sd/- Illegible. Dated, Durgapur, C.O. Bank of India January 1, 1997. Durgapur Branch." (Quoted as it appears in the Paper Book) 19. According to the petitioner, these facts clearly established that after hiving been appointed by the Manager as a Class-IV Staff in the year 1983, he worked under the Bank as a Caretaker but the dispute arose only in January 1999 when the Manager told him to receive salary without any voucher. According to the petitioner, these facts clearly established that after hiving been appointed by the Manager as a Class-IV Staff in the year 1983, he worked under the Bank as a Caretaker but the dispute arose only in January 1999 when the Manager told him to receive salary without any voucher. On his refusal to receive his salary in such a manner, payments were withheld since January 1999 by the said Manager. Paragraphs 4(f) and 4(i) of the said Affidavit-in-reply in which the petitioner made the aforementioned statements, read as follows: "4(f) I respectfully state and submit that from the aforesaid facts it is clearly proved that I am working under the Bank of India appointed by the Manager as Class-IV Staff in the year 1983 and since then I am serving as Caretaker uptill now. (i) I beg to state that since January 1999 my salary has not been paid uptill date by the Manager on the ground that instead of paying the salary through voucher, he forced me to accept the same without voucher and thereby I am living with my family in starving condition." (Quoted as it appears in the Paper Book) 20. Inthe other Appeal, i.e. F.M.A. No 250/2003 (which pertains to W.P. No 7659 (W)/1999), the facts as pleaded in the Writ Petition are that the petitioner therein (Om Prakash Balmiky) stated, at some places, that he I was "engaged" as a "Safaiwala", while at other places, he stated that he was "appointed" as a "Safaiwala" in the Staff Quarters of the Bank of India, Durgapur Branch in the year 1984 arid that he is working uninterruptedly since then. According to him, he belongs to the Harijan Community and did not get any scope for education. He is illiterate and cannot read and write either in Hindi or in English or in Bengali. At all times, he has to take the help of others for filling representations by putting his thumb impression. Prior to his "engagement", he had filed an Application before the Bank Authorities and they, being satisfied with his performance at an interview, had "appointed" him as a "Safaiwala" on a monthly pay of Rs. 150/-. At all times, he has to take the help of others for filling representations by putting his thumb impression. Prior to his "engagement", he had filed an Application before the Bank Authorities and they, being satisfied with his performance at an interview, had "appointed" him as a "Safaiwala" on a monthly pay of Rs. 150/-. The "terms of employment" were "implied as no formal appointment order appointing him as Safaiwala was issued in favour of him." (Quoted) He has made these statements in Paras 2 and 3 of the writ petition, which read as follows: "2. That your petitioner belongs to Harijan Community engaged in job of Safaiwala in the Staff Quarters of the Bank of India, Durgapur Branch, with effect from the year 1984, uninterruptedly at a consolidated amount of Rs. 150/- per month. It is stated that there are 42 flats in the staff quarters of Bank of India, Durgapur Branch, Burdwan and the petitioner has to work more than eight hours in each days. That it is stated that the petitioner being member of Harijan Community did not get any scope of education in any forum and he is illiterate even cannot read and write it English, Hindi and Bengali, all the times he takes help from others for making representations before the Bank authority by making thumb impression thereon. 3. That prior to his engagement as Safaiwala in the year 1984 in the staff quarters, Bank of India, Durgapur Branch, he made al application before the Bank authorities for an employment. The authority of the Ban on being satisfied with his performance the interview, appointed him as Safaiwala a monthly pay of Rs. 150/-. The terms of employment was implied as no form appointment order appointing him as Safaiwala was issued in favour of him." (Quoted as it appears in the Paper Book) 21. His further case, before the Writ Court was that since his appointment, he had been performing the duties pertaining to the cleaning of drains, cleaning of 42 (Forty-two) Staff Quarters housed in 5 (five) blocks -each of which were 4 (four) storied buildings and which were constructed for the employees of; the Bank. His further case, before the Writ Court was that since his appointment, he had been performing the duties pertaining to the cleaning of drains, cleaning of 42 (Forty-two) Staff Quarters housed in 5 (five) blocks -each of which were 4 (four) storied buildings and which were constructed for the employees of; the Bank. According to him, he has to also perform the jobs of (1) cleaning the interior roads of the Colony, (2) cleaning the surrounding of the Staff Quarters and (3) weeding out the shrubs and removing of the refuse from inside the colony. In doing so, he is engaged for 8 to 9 hours a day. In Para-6 of the writ petition, this petitioner has stated that no formal appointment order was issued to him and that the conditions of service are deplorable because he is not allowed any weekly "Off day." Since he is the only sweeper doing the job of sweeping and cleaning, no causal leave is granted. Similarly, medical leave is also not allowed to him. He is also not allowed any annual bonus. Para-6 of the writ petition reads as follows: "6. That the petitioner states that no formal appointment order was issued to him. Conditions of service are very much deplorable inasmuch as he is not allowed any weekly off day. No causal leave, medical leave are also allowed to him inasmuch as he is the only sweeper doing the jobs of sweeping and cleaning the Colonies Staff quarters and roads." (Quoted as it appears in the Paper Book) 22. On May 19, 1989, he made a representation to the Manager for enhancement of his wages and for weekly "Off days. Upon repeated representations, he was granted an enhancement of Rs. 450/-per month and the mode of payment was through vouchers after putting his thumb impression on its reverse side. On February 19, 1998, he filed another representation before the Manager praying for enhancement of his wages to Rs. 1500/- per month. In the said representation, he drew the attention of the Manager to the fact that the minimum wages in West Bengal, during the relevant period, was Rs. 65.50 Paise per day. Since the Bank did nothing in the matter, he then sent a representation to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal vide his letter dated July 20, 1998 which , was marked Annexure "C" to the writ petition. 65.50 Paise per day. Since the Bank did nothing in the matter, he then sent a representation to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal vide his letter dated July 20, 1998 which , was marked Annexure "C" to the writ petition. Since no action was taken from this Authority, he then moved the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ministry of Labour, Government of India drawing his attention to : his grievances. On February 18, 1999, the Assistant Labour commissioner (Central), Raniganj sent a Notice to the Branch Manager, Bank of India wherein, while forwarding the representation of the petitioner, he directed the: said Branch Manager to furnish his comments within a fortnight. According to the petitioner, since then, he did not hear anything from the said Assistant Labour Commissioner. 23. With the aforementioned grievances, the petitioner prayed for an Order from the Writ Court that the appellant Bank be directed to treat him as a regular Group-D Employee w.ef June 1, 1984. He also prayed that the Bank be directed to pay him his salary from January 1999 onwards in the same manner as was being paid through vouchers earlier. He also prayed that the appellants/Bank be directed to absorb and regularize his services as a Group-D Staff under their regular establishment with effect from June 1, 1984, i.e. the date on which he was engaged on the post of a Sweeper. 24. In the Affidavit-in-opposition, it was stated that the writ petition was thoroughly misconceived and not maintainable. They also denied the facts relating to "appointment" of the petitioner in the year 1984 as a "Safaiwala"-They stated that in order to provide accommodation to the employees of the Bank, it had constructed 42 Staff Quarters in 5 buildings at Durgapur in the year 1982 and with a view to ensure proper services to the occupants of the buildings, a Committee consisting of the occupants had been set up and it was the said Committee which had engaged the petitioner as a "Safaiwala" for cleaning and sweeping of the Staff Quarters and that the said jobs were not, in any way connected, with the principal business of the Bank and no commercial activities took place from the said buildings. They also stated that the said Committee used to pay the wages. to the petitioner initially for a sum of Rs. They also stated that the said Committee used to pay the wages. to the petitioner initially for a sum of Rs. 150/-p.m. but in the year 1987, it was enhanced to Rs. 250/- per month and finally, in the year 1990, it was enhanced to Rs. 450/-per month. They also stated that the wages used to be reimbursed by the Bank to the said Committee. Their statement made in Para-10 of the Affidavit-in-opposition, reads as follows: "10. With reference to paragraph 2 of the petition it is denied that petitioner was appointed as Safaiwala by Bank of India, Durgapur Branch in the year 1984 or on any other day at a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 150/- per month. It is stated that in order to house the employee of the Bank, the Bank had constructed 42 Quarters in 5 buildings at Durgapur in the year 1982. With a view to give proper services to the occupants of the buildings a Committee consisting of the occupants of the said Durgapur Staff Quarters was formed. The said committee engaged the petitioner as Safaiwala for cleaning and sweeping the staff quarters towards day to day maintenance and up keeping of the quarters. The said job is no way connected with main business of the Bank. No commercial activities of the Bank took place from the said buildings. The committee constituted as aforesaid used to pay the wages to petitioner initially for a sum of Rs. 150/-and thereafter from 1987 it was enhanced to Rs. 250/- per month. The said wages was used to be reimbursed by the Bank to the said committee. The said wages further enhanced to Rs. 450/- per month in the year 1990. Save as aforesaid and save as what are matters of record, the allegations to the contrary made in the said paragraph are denied and disputed.' (Quoted as it appears in the Paper Book) 25. It was then stated in the Affidavit-in-opposition that after a period of time, the said Committee became defunct and then the wages of the petitioner were paid by obtaining his signature on vouchers of the concerned Branch of the Bank. It was further stated in the Affidavit-in-opposition that since the petitioner's job was not connected with the main business of the Bank, there was no1 question of granting him any leave facilities or other benefits. 26. It was further stated in the Affidavit-in-opposition that since the petitioner's job was not connected with the main business of the Bank, there was no1 question of granting him any leave facilities or other benefits. 26. In reply to the aforementioned Affidavit-in-opposition, the petitioner stated in 1 Para 4(a) therein that right from the date of his appointment in 1984 as a "Safaiwala", he was posted in the Staff Quarters under the Bank of India, Durgapur Branch. He was paid salary by the Manager, Bank of India, of the said Branch 2 through vouchers till 1998 and in support of such a statement, he brought on record a voucher dated October 1, 1993 (marked Annexure "P4" to the Reply) issued by the Manager showing payment of a sum of Rs. 450/- for the month of September, 1993. The same reads as follows: "Bank of India 4230 Branch, Durgapur Date October 1, 1983 Head Office Branch Code No. 0000 To. B. D. N. Dept. Transaction Code (1) Estate Department No. 147017 Being the amt. Paid to Mr. Omprakash Balmiki for the month of Sept.93 for working as per Time Sweeper at Staff Qrs. Rs.450/- Durgapur Encl.: one. Rupees four hundred fifty only. Sd/- Trans. Cashier Accountant” (Quoted as it appears in the Paper Book) It appears to this Court that the date "October 1, 1983" typed in Paper Book and which is quoted above in the forgoing paragraph is incorrect because it relates to the payment of September 1993 and moreover in Para 4(a) of the Reply, the petitioner has stated "That since the date of my appointment as Safaiwala and posted in the Staff Quarters under the Bank of India, Durgapur Branch, with effect from 1984. I have been paid my salaries by the Manager, Bank of India, Durgapur Branch through the voucher till 1998. In support of it the voucher dated October 1, 1993 issued by the Manager for payment of my salary of Rs. 450/-for the month of September, 1993 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure "P-4." (Quoted) The petitioner also stated that from time to time he had filed Applications before the Branch Manager for enhancement of his salary and for other benefits as were provided for other unskilled workers and it was pursuant thereto that the concerned authority enhanced his salary from Rs. 150/-p.m. to Rs. 150/-p.m. to Rs. 450/- p.m. On the August 4, 1997, he had prayed for a further enhancement of his salary from Rs. 450/-p.m. to Rs. 1800/-p.m., but no action was taken. He had also filed Applications before the Manager for grant of leave. 27. In Para-10 of his Reply, this petitioner denied that he was appointed by a Committee. According to him, he was appointed by the Manager, Bank of India, Durgapur Branch in the year 1984 on a monthly salary of Rs. 150/-which was enhanced to Rs. 450/-. However, thereafter, the Manager refused to pay him his salary through vouchers. Consequently, his salary remained unpaid from January, 1999. The petitioner disputed the plea to the effect that the nature of his job was not connected with the main business of the Bank or that no commercial activities of the Bank took place from the buildings where he worked. He also disputed the contention to the effect that it was the committee which used to pay his remunerations. 28. On the basis of the aforementioned grievances the petitioner filed the writ petition. 29. The learned single Judge took up both the matters together and disposed them of on of October 9, 2002 by passing the impugned order which has been assailed in both these two Appeals. By reason of the said impugned order, the learned single Judge noticed the submissions made on behalf of the appellants to the effect that the case of the petitioners cannot be considered as there was no master-servant relationship but proceeded to hold that such a submission was devoid of merits as from the Affidavit-in-opposition, it appeared to him that money was paid from time to time by the Bank at the behest of the Managing Committee which had been set up for the management of the Staff Quarters. 30. According to the learned single Judge, the petitioners were therefore entitled to a similar treatment as was given out to other casual workers. In these circumstances, the learned single Judge directed the Bank to consider the case for regularization of both the writ petitioners in terms of the available scheme for regularization of casual workers in accordance with law but at the same time he also directed that so long as the services of the petitioners were not regularized, the present. working arrangement would continue. working arrangement would continue. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the parties before us that on the basis of this order, both the concerned petitioners are still continuing in service. 31. The learned single Judge also directed the Bank to release all arrears of salary within a period of 2 (two) weeks from the date of communication of the said order. 32. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment, the Bank has filed these two appeals. 33. Upon a perusal of the aforementioned facts, it is thus evident that although the learned single Judge noticed the submissions made on behalf of the appellants to the effect that the case of the writ petitioner/ respondents cannot be considered under any Scheme because there was no Master-servant relationship, he nevertheless rejected such submission and held that it was devoid of merits. It appears that the only reason which made the learned single Judge reject such a crucial contention was because from the Affidavit-in-opposition, it appeared to his Lordship that "money was paid from time to time by the Bank" at the "behest of the Managing Committee set up for the management of the Staff quarters." The learned single Judge held that the writ petitioner/respondents were entitled to have similar treatment as was extended to other casual workers and in that context, a direction was given upon the appellant-Bank to consider the case for regularization of the writ petitioner/respondents in terms of the available Scheme that was applicable to casual workers and so long as it was not so considered, it was directed that the writ petitioner/respondents would continue under the present working arrangement. Let it be recorded that the appellants had submitted before the learned single Judge that although they did have a Policy for regularization of casual workers, the same could not be applied upon the writ petitioner/respondents as there was no Master-servant relationship. 34. The question therefore that falls for l consideration is as to whether, mere payment of money "from time to time" at the "behest of the Managing Committee", can be said to validate an entry into the services of the Bank without there being any valid appointment letter issued ' by a competent authority. 35. 34. The question therefore that falls for l consideration is as to whether, mere payment of money "from time to time" at the "behest of the Managing Committee", can be said to validate an entry into the services of the Bank without there being any valid appointment letter issued ' by a competent authority. 35. At this juncture, let us keep in mind that both the writ petitioner/respondents have admitted that their "contract of employment was implied" and that "no appointment letter had been issued." The petitioner-respondent Md. Momtaj Hossain (respondent in F.M.A. 272/2003) had said so in Para-2 of his writ petition while the writ petitioner-respondent, i Om Prakash Balmiky (respondent in F.M.A. 250/2003 had said so in Para-3 of his written petition. 36. Thus, in other words, it is evident that both the writ petitioner-appellants entered into the services of the Bank through a method that is not recognised under the law as a lawful, legal, transparent method of appointment, Such being the position, the learned single Judge could not have summarily rejected the contention of the appellants that there was no Master-servant relationship without appreciating and/or considering the point argued by them. 37. Additionally, now the repeated . judgments on this issue which the Supreme Court has been pronouncing and which are being considered in the following paragraphs would amply indicate that a valid Master-servant relationship is sine qua non for purposes of considering such cases but before we take note to these judgments, we must at this point, also hold that even the so called "payment of money" which the learned single Judge has referred to, are payments, made from "time to time" on the basis of vouchers. Such payments cannot be deemed to be a payment in terms of a fixed scale/grade of pay and similarly, on the basis of such payments, it cannot also be said that the writ petitioner/respondents were actually appointed through a valid and/or a constitutional process which conferred the status of "Master" and "Servant" vis-a-vis the Bank and the writ petitioner/respondents. 38. We will now deal with the judgments of the Supreme Court and as a result of these judgments, we must proceed to allow both the Appeals as we are unable to accept the contentions of the writ petitioner/respondents made by them either before the learned single Judge or before us. 39. 38. We will now deal with the judgments of the Supreme Court and as a result of these judgments, we must proceed to allow both the Appeals as we are unable to accept the contentions of the writ petitioner/respondents made by them either before the learned single Judge or before us. 39. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondents has strenuously contended that both of them have worked continuously right from 1982 and were allowed to so continue without the intervention of the Court at least till the date of the impugned Order i.e. October 9, 2002 and thereafter, they have been continuing on the basis of the Order impugned in this Appeal as well as on the basis of the interim orders that were passed in both the Appeals on January 29, 2003 by a Division Bench. In F.M.A. No. 272/2003, following order was passed: M.A.T. 87/2003 with C.A.N. 516/2003 With C.A.N. 517/2003 January 29, 2003. Re : Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed on January 16, 2003 (C.A.N. 516/2003) with Re : Application for stay filed on January 16, 2003 (C.A.N. 517/2003). Mr. R.N. Majumdar for Appellants. Mr. Yamin Ali for Respondent/Petitioner This appeal is barred by time and the delay is of 12 days. Other side has no objection. For the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. We condone the delay and allow the application made under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Let this appeal now be registered by the office, if it is otherwise in form. We have heard the learned counsel, for the parties. Meanwhile, operation of the order of the learned single Judge is stayed only to the extent of regularization. The writ petitioners shall be paid all salary for his engagement. The learned counsel, for the appellants, is directed to prepare requisite number of paper books, out of Court, and file the same within a period of four weeks from today. Liberty is given to the parties to pray for early hearing of this appeal. The application for stay is, thus, disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR MATHUR, C. J.) (JAYANTA KUMAR, BISWAS, J.)" (Quoted) In F.M.A. No. 250/2003 the following order was passed: "F.M.A. 250/2003 M.A.T. 88/2003 with C.A.N. 519/03 with C.A.N. 518/03 January 29, 2003. Re : Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed on January 16, 2003 (C.A.N. 519/03) with Re. The application for stay is, thus, disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR MATHUR, C. J.) (JAYANTA KUMAR, BISWAS, J.)" (Quoted) In F.M.A. No. 250/2003 the following order was passed: "F.M.A. 250/2003 M.A.T. 88/2003 with C.A.N. 519/03 with C.A.N. 518/03 January 29, 2003. Re : Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed on January 16, 2003 (C.A.N. 519/03) with Re. Application for stay filed on January 16, 2003 (C.A.N. 518/2003). Mr. R.N. Majumdar for Appellants. Mr. Yamin Ali for Respondent/ Petitioner This appeal is barred by time and the delay is of 10 days. Other side has no objection. For the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. We condone the delay and allow the application made under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Let this appeal now be registered by the office, if it is otherwise in form. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Meanwhile, operation of the order of the learned single Judge is stayed only to the extent of regularization. However, the respondent-petitioner herein shall be entitled to get salary for his engagement as well as he shall not be evicted from the quarters which he is occupying at present. The learned counsel, for the appellants, is directed to prepare requisite number of paper books, out of Court, and file the same within a period of four weeks from today. Liberty is given to the parties to pray for early hearing of this appeal. The application for stay is, thus, disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR MATHUR, C. J.) (JAYANTA KUMAR, BISWAS, J.))" (Quoted) 40. According to the learned counsel, the writ petitioner-respondents have therefore worked continuously, without the intervention of the Court for about 20 years from 1982 and thereafter they have been continuing with the intervention of the Court and therefore both of them have a legitimate expectation for their cases being taken up for regularization. We are unable to accept such a contention in view of Paras 13 and 45 of the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) AIR 2006 SC 1806 : (2006) 4 SCC 1 : (2006) 2 MLJ 326 : 2006-II-LLJ-722. These paragraphs totally obliterate the concept of any expectations arising out of the fact that the concerned person has worked for sometime and in some cases, for a considerable length of time. These paragraphs totally obliterate the concept of any expectations arising out of the fact that the concerned person has worked for sometime and in some cases, for a considerable length of time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while referring to a large number of the other judgments, has come down heavily on reliefs being granted on the ground of legitimate expectations as the person concerned has worked either for some time or for a considerable length of time. Paras 13 and 45 of the said judgment read thus: "13. What is sought to be pitted against this approach, is the so-called equity arising out of giving of temporary employment or engagement on daily wages and the continuance of such persons in the engaged work for a certain length of time. Such considerations can have only a limited role to play, when every qualified citizen has a right to apply for appointment, the adoption of the concept of rule of law and the scheme of the Constitution for appointment to posts. It cannot also be forgotten that it is not the role of the Courts to ignore, encourage or approve appointments given outside the constitutional scheme. In effect, orders based on such sentiments or approach would result in perpetuating illegalities and in the jettisoning of the scheme of public employment adopted by us while adopting the Constitution. The approving of such acts also results in depriving many of their opportunity to compete for public employment. We have, therefore, to consider the question objectively and based on the constitutional and statutory provision. In this context, we have also to bear in mind the exposition of law by a Constitution Bench in State of Punjab v. Jagdip Singh AIR 1964 SC 521 , it was held therein: "In our opinion where a Government servant has no right to a post or to a particular status, though an authority under the Government acting beyond its competence had purported to give that person a status which it was not entitled to give he will not in law be deemed to have been validly appointed to the post or given the particular status. 45. While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularized or made permanent, the Courts are swayed by the fact that the person concerned has worked for sometime and in some cases for a considerable length of time. 45. While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularized or made permanent, the Courts are swayed by the fact that the person concerned has worked for sometime and in some cases for a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with open eyes. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain — not at arm's length — since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he, gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. But doing so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. If the Court were to void a contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were not having equal bargaining power, that too would not enable the Court to grant any relief to that employee. A total embargo on such casual or temporary employment is not possible, given the, exigencies of administration and if imposed, would only mean that some people who atleast get employment temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be getting even that employment when securing of such employment brings at least some succour to them. After all, in numerable citizens of our vast country are in search of employment and one is not compelled to accept a casual or temporary employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an employment. It is in that context that one has to proceed on the basis that the employment, was accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the consequences flowing from it. In other words, even while accepting the employment, the person concerned knows the nature of his employment. It is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. In other words, even while accepting the employment, the person concerned knows the nature of his employment. It is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. The claim acquired by him in the post in which he is temporarily employed or the interest in that post cannot be considered to be of such a magnitude as to enable the giving up of the procedure established, for making regular appointments to available posts in the services of the State. The argument that since one has been working for some time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue him, even though he was aware of the nature of the employment when he first took it up, is not (sic) one that would enable the jettisoning of the procedure established by law for public employment and would have to fail when tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution." 41. We are further, again unable to accept such a contention because in the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Chanchal Goyal (Mrs.) v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2003 SC 1713 : (2003) 3 SCC 485 , it has been held in Para 23 therein that the principles of legitimate expectation cannot be applied on unfounded impressions. In the instant case, there is no Letter of Appointment and there is nothing on record to show as to who or which authority created such an impression. Consequently Para 23 of the said judgment attains significance in this case. The said Para reads as follows: "23. On the facts of the case delineated above, the principle of legitimate expectation has no application. It has not been shown as to how any act was done by the authorities which created an impression that the conditions attached in the original appointment order were waived. Mere continuance does not imply such waiver. No legitimate expectation can be founded on such unfounded impressions. It was not even indicated as to who, if any, and with what authority created such impression. No waiver which would be against requisite compliances can be countenanced. Whether an expectation exists, is self-evidently, a question of fact. Clear statutory words override any expectation, however founded." (Quoted) 42. In the case of Utkal University and Anr. It was not even indicated as to who, if any, and with what authority created such impression. No waiver which would be against requisite compliances can be countenanced. Whether an expectation exists, is self-evidently, a question of fact. Clear statutory words override any expectation, however founded." (Quoted) 42. In the case of Utkal University and Anr. v. Jyotirmayee Nayak and Others, (2003) 4 SCC 760 , the Supreme Court has held that in the absence of any Appointment Orders, a regular pay scale cannot be granted. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that the learned single Judge fell in error when he held that the writ petitioner-respondents were entitled to have similar treatment as extended to other casual workers. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is to be found in Para-5 of the said judgment which says that: "Under these circumstances, the question of regularization of services of the respondents does not survive. At any rate the High Court was right in rejecting their claims for, regularization and the respondents have not challenged the same by filing any appeal against that order. As regards the direction for payment of salary on a par with the similarly placed employees in the University, we find it difficult to sustain the direction given by the High Court. It is not disputed that the respondents do not have any appointment orders on the basis of which they could claim pay scales or a regular salary. Except the office order dated December 2, 1994, there is nothing to support the claims of the respondents for payment of salary as is admissible to the regular employees of the University. One sentence in the order dated December 2, 1994, that the respondents could "draw their 5, salary accordingly as per rules", cannot give any right to them. That sentence cannot be read in isolation. The said office order must be understood in the light of the appointment orders issued to the respondents." (Quoted) 43. In the two cases at hand, the appellants-Bank had stated in their Affidavitin-opposition that in order to provide accommodation to its employees, 42 (forty-two) Staff-quarters had been constructed in the year 1982 in 5 (five) blocks (buildings) at Durgapur and in order to ensure proper services, a Committee had been set up comprising of the Occupants of the quarters and it was this Committee which had engaged the writ petitioner-respondents. In both the cases such a statement was made in Paragraph-10 of the Affidavit-in-opposition filed in both the writ petitions and in reply, there was a mere denial by the writ petitioner -respondents. However, the fact remains that neither of them produced a single chit of paper to show that the Bank had appointed them. On the contrary, both the writ petitioner-respondents had stated before the Writ Court that they were not given any appointment letters. Under these circumstances, we are unable to attach much importance to the statements made by the writ petitioner-respondents to the effect that their "contract of employment was implied." 44. We are afraid we cannot also find any fault on the appellants-Bank even if either they or a Committee had decided to engage the writ petitioner-respondents. In Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the judgment passed in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (supra), it has been held that with a view to make the procedure for selection fair, the Constitution, by Article 315, has created Public Service Commissions for the Union as well as for the States. In line with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and in order to provide equality of opportunity in matters of public employment, Article 335 provides for special considerations in matters of claims for employment made by members of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes. However, the Constitution does not envisage any employment outside the Constitutional Scheme but notwithstanding thereof, there may be occasions when the State or its instrumentalities are compelled to employ 5 persons on posts which are temporary, on daily wages, as additional hands or taking them without following a procedure to discharge the duties in respect of the posts which are sanctioned and which are required to be filled 11 by following a regular procedure established by the Constitution. This right of the State and its instrumentalities has been recognized in paragraph-12 of the judgment of Umadevi (supra) Para 12 of the said judgment reads as follows: "12. This right of the State and its instrumentalities has been recognized in paragraph-12 of the judgment of Umadevi (supra) Para 12 of the said judgment reads as follows: "12. In spite of this scheme, there may be occasions when the sovereign State or its instrumentalities will have to employ persons, in posts which are temporary, on daily wages, as additional hands or taking them in without following the required procedure, to discharge the duties in respect of the posts that are sanctioned and that are : required to be filled in terms of the relevant procedure established by the Constitution or for work in temporary posts or projects that are not needed permanently. This right of the Union or of the State Government cannot but be recognized and there is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits such engaging of persons temporarily or on daily wages, to meet the needs of the situation. But the fact that such engagements are resorted to cannot be used to defeat the very scheme of public employment. Nor can a Court say that the Union or the State Governments do not have the right to engage persons in various capacities for a duration or until the work in a particular project is completed. Once this right of the Government is recognized and the mandate of the constitutional requirement for public employment is respected, there cannot be much difficulty in coming to the conclusion that it is ordinarily not proper for the Courts whether acting under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Article 32 of the Constitution, to direct absorption in permanent employment 5 of those who have been engaged without following a due process of selection as envisaged by the constitutional scheme. (Quoted) 45. In the instant case, the stand taken by the appellants-Bank is that the job performed by the writ petitioner-respondents is not connected with the main job of the Bank. In other words, the performance of the jobs of a "Safaiwala" (i.e. writ petitioner Om Prakash Balmiky) or a Caretaker/Pump Operator (i.e. writ petitioner Md. (Quoted) 45. In the instant case, the stand taken by the appellants-Bank is that the job performed by the writ petitioner-respondents is not connected with the main job of the Bank. In other words, the performance of the jobs of a "Safaiwala" (i.e. writ petitioner Om Prakash Balmiky) or a Caretaker/Pump Operator (i.e. writ petitioner Md. Momtaj Hossain) are not the "dominant objects" of the Bank as neither a "Safaiwala" nor a Caretaker/Pump Operator are posts which are sanctioned for carrying out the said "dominant object" of the Bank i.e. "Banking." In this context, it would be apt to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S. C. Chandra and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2007) 8 SCC 279 : (2007) Lab IC 4043 wherein, while dealing with Educational Institutions which were receiving financial assistance from M/s. Hindustan Copper Ltd. for benefiting the children of their own employees, the Supreme Court held that giving financial assistance did not necessarily mean that the teachers and staff working in the School were employees of the said M/s. Hindustan Copper Ltd. and that by running a School, which was not their dominant object, there cannot be the relationship of employer and employee between the Management of HCL and the teachers and other staff of the Schools. 46. In the instant case also, nothing has been produced nor brought on record to establish that the jobs of a "caretaker" or a "Pump Operator" or a "Safaiwala" were either a part of the dominant object of the functions of the Bank i.e. "Banking" or that these posts were sanctioned by the Bank so to form a part of the Staff of the Bank, we therefore repeat that mere payments by vouchers were not sufficient to establish that there was a Master-servant relationship between the Bank and the writ petitioners/ respondents and that too when there was no document to establish that they were actually appointed by the Bank. 47. 47. Now in their Application for stay of the impugned judgment, the appellants, while specifically stating that such jobs were not in any way connected with the main business of the Bank, had also stated and referred to the Bipartite Settlements made from time to time pertaining to the Service Conditions of the Award Staff which were entered upon between the Management of "A" Class Banks including the appellant-Bank and their Workmen represented by the All India Bank Employees' Association, National Confederation of Bank Employees, Bank Employees' Federation of India and the Indian National Bank Employees' Federation. In the said Application for Stay, the appellants had referred to "Temporary Employees" as contemplated under Chapter XX of the first Bipartite Settlement dated October 19, 1966. Clause 20.7 and 20.8 therein deal with such temporary employees and the same has been quoted in the said Application for stay. We quote the same because these two clauses cannot be made applicable upon the writ petitioner/respondents as neither of them were "appointed" by the Bank. "20.7 In supersession of paragraph 21.20 and sub-clause (c) of paragraph 23.15 of the Desai Award, "Temporary Employees" will mean a workman who has been appointed for a limited period of work which is of an essentially temporary nature or who is employed temporarily as an additional workman in connection with a temporary increase in work of a permanent nature and include a workman other than permanent workman who is appointed in a temporary vacancy caused by the absence of a particular permanent workman. 20.8 A temporary workman may also be appointed to fill a permanent vacancy provided that such temporary appointment shall not exceed a period of three months during which the bank shall make arrangement for filling up the vacancy permanently. If such a temporary workmen is eventually selected for filling up the vacancy, the period of such temporary employment will be taken into account as part of his probationary period." 48. If such a temporary workmen is eventually selected for filling up the vacancy, the period of such temporary employment will be taken into account as part of his probationary period." 48. The writ petitioner-respondents, have themselves admitted that they were engaged without any (Quoted as it appears in the Paper-book) appointment letters as "Caretaker-:,um-Pump Operator" or as a "Safaiwala." They therefore cannot say that they were taken in employment as a "temporary employee" in terms of either Clause 20.7 or 2008 of the said Settlement nor can they say that they were working on a post that was duly sanctioned because nothing has been brought on record to establish that the posts of "Caretaker-cum-Pump Operator" and "Safaiwala" were sanctioned. Let it also, at this point itself, be recorded that so far as the writ petitioner-respondent Md. Momtaj Hossain is concerned, he has assigned different designations to himself at different places. In one place, he has stated that he was taken in employment as a "Caretaker-cum-Pump Operator" whereas in another place he has stated that he was working as a "Pump Caretaker." Similarly at some places he has stated that he was engaged in the job of "operating the pump house in connection with supply of water, drinking water to the residents of the Staff colony" while at other places, he stated that he was engaged in "cleaning jobs" and looking after "every corner of the staff colony" and looking after the "safety and security" of the residence. In yet another place, he referred to himself as the "Caretaker" of the Bank of India. 49. However, in Para-53, it has been clarified that there may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of Orders of Courts or Tribunals. The Supreme Court observed that in these cases, the question of regularization of their services may have to be considered on merits in the light of principles settled in the cases of (1) State of Mysore v. S. V. Narayanappa, AIR 1967 SC 1071 ; (2) R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah, AIR 1972 SC 1767 : (1972) 1 SCC 409 : 1972-I-LLJ-565 and (3) B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 1676 : (1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1979-II-LLJ-209. 50. 50. It is only subject to the above that the Supreme Court observed in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (supra) that the question of regularization of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled in these judgments as well as in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (supra), but R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah (supra) case has no application to the facts of this case as Narayanappa was throughout working in an officiating capacity and was a "local candidate" like several other such employees APPOINTED by direct recruitment by the Government instead of regular recruitment by the Public Service Commission of the State. The petitioner was not appointed by the issuance of any appointment letter. Similarly, R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah (supra) case cannot also be applied upon the facts of the present case because in that case, respondent T. Thimmiah was appointed temporarily as an officiating Principal until further orders. In the present cases, there is no such appointment. Similarly, B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka (supra) case also cannot be applied because this orase does not concern itself with any dispute concerning direct recruits and promotees as was the subject-matter in that case. If none of the aforesaid judgments can be applied, then the only case that must be looked upon is the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (supra) but even that case does not give any liberty to condone an illegality/irregularity by regularizing the services of those who do not even have an Appointment Letter. 51. In the instant cases, we find that although the writ petitioner-respondents have worked for a considerable length of time upto 2002 without the intervention of any Court, we 51 are afraid that even the benefit of paragraph 53 of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (supra) judgment cannot be applied because they were not working on duly sanctioned posts nor is there any document showing that they were actually appointed by the Bank. Para 53 of the judgment delivered in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (supra) reads is follows: "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. Para 53 of the judgment delivered in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (supra) reads is follows: "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v. S. V. Narayanappa (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah (supra) and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka (supra) and referred to in Para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the Courts or of Tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the Courts or of Tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme." (Quoted) 52. In the instant cases, we have not come across anything to suggest that the writ petitioner-respondents were appointed in a manner provided under the Constitution. Except for some Payment Vouchers as well as some Representations made by them before the Authorities of the Bank (and in the case of writ petitioner-respondent Md. Momtaj Hossain, a Certificate issued by C. O. Bank of India, Durgapur Branch being Annexure R-4 of his Reply to the Affidavit-in-opposition), we have not found any document which can come to the aid of the writ petitioner/respondents in support of their contention that they were validly inducted into service. Momtaj Hossain, a Certificate issued by C. O. Bank of India, Durgapur Branch being Annexure R-4 of his Reply to the Affidavit-in-opposition), we have not found any document which can come to the aid of the writ petitioner/respondents in support of their contention that they were validly inducted into service. Even otherwise, we are afraid that such a Certificate cannot substitute itself for a Letter of Appointment nor can it be referred to for purposes of agreeing with a submission that regularity was followed while inducting them. 53. The Supreme Court, in the case of, Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur v. Om-Prakash Dubey, AIR 2007 SC 893: (2007) 1 SCC 373 has observed in paragraph 11 that "The question which, thus arises for consideration, would be : Is there any, distinction between "irregular appointment" and "illegal appointment"? The distinction between the two terms is apparent. In the event the appointment is made in total disregard of the constitutional scheme as also the recruitment rules framed by the employer, which is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the recruitment would be an illegal one; whereas there may be cases where, although, substantial compliance with the constitutional scheme as also the rules has been made, the appointment may be irregular in the sense that some provisions of the rules might not have been strictly adhered to." (Quoted) 54. For the foregoing reasons, we are unable to uphold the order/judgment of the learned single Judge. We repeat that on the basis of a few vouchers showing payment from time to time, said to be at the "behest of the Managing Committee" and "set up for the Management of the Staff quarters" (Quoted from the impugned order), no inference could have been drawn that either the Bank was the appointing authority or that the relationship of "Master-and-Servant" was in existence between the Bank and the writ petitioner-respondents. Consequently no order could have been passed holding that the writ petitioner-respondents were entitled to have similar treatment as was extended to other casual workers. We have already taken notice of the Bipartite Settlement referred to above but we do not find as to under what category of employment the writ petitioner-respondents can be placed. 55. Consequently no order could have been passed holding that the writ petitioner-respondents were entitled to have similar treatment as was extended to other casual workers. We have already taken notice of the Bipartite Settlement referred to above but we do not find as to under what category of employment the writ petitioner-respondents can be placed. 55. In these circumstances, we are of the view, that the writ petitioner-respondents could not have been directed to be treated as equals qua other casual workers for purposes of granting similar treatment. 56. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the judgment and the Order of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. Both the appeals are allowed but, the appellant/Bank will not recover any amount already paid to the writ petitioner/respondents. 57. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 58. Upon appropriate Application(s) being made, urgent Xeroxed Certificate copy of this order, may be given/issued expeditiously subject to usual terms and conditions.