JUDGMENT : SUMAN SHYAM, J. Heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This is the second occasion when this Court has been called upon to adjudicate the same issues involved in this writ petition. The writ petitioner herein, who was temporarily engaged as General Attendant (Sweeper) under the respondent Bank on 15-06-2004, having rendered more than 21 years of continuous service is before this Court, seeking a direction for payment of arrear salary and also an order for regularizing his services. This writ petition was earlier allowed by this Court by judgment and order dated 16-06-2023. The respondents as appellants had, however, preferred W.A. No. 369/2023 assailing the judgment and order dated 16-06-2023, inter alia, on the grounds that the prayer of the writ petitioner had been allowed by drawing parity with another employee, viz. Sibendu Kumar Nath, whose service was regularized by the Bank although there was no pleading in the writ petition to that effect. By taking note of such submissions made by the learned counsel for the Bank, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court had passed order dated 03-10-2023 disposing of W.A. No. 369/2023 by setting aside the judgment and order dated 16-06-2023 and remanding the matter to be decided afresh by the Single Bench after granting liberty to the parties to file additional pleadings. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the observations made in the judgment and order dated 16-06-2023 and also having regard to the order that is proposed to be passed in the present proceeding, this Court is of the opinion that although the earlier judgment of this Court, disposing of the present writ petition, has been set-aside by the Division Bench, yet, it would be necessary to reproduce the judgment and order dated 16-06-2023 here-in-below for ready reference: “Heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. L. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the Bank. The petitioners case, briefly stated, is that pursuant to a selection process based on interview, the petitioner was empanelled at Sl. M. Nath, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. L. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the Bank. The petitioners case, briefly stated, is that pursuant to a selection process based on interview, the petitioner was empanelled at Sl. No. 2 in the panel of Gr-IV employees who are required to be employed under the State Bank of India (SBI), on temporary basis, as General Attendant (Sweeper) in the district of Cachar. There were all together three candidates whose names figured in the panel notified on 26-02-2004 by the Assistant General Manager, SBI, Regional Office, Silchar and the petitioner’s name appears in Sl. No. 2 of the panel. Pursuant to the preparation of the panel, the petitioner was allowed to join as General Attendant in the SBI, Silchar Bazar Branch w.e.f. 15-06-2004 on the basis of an order of appointment dated 16-06-2004 issued by the Branch Manager. Since then, the petitioner has been continuously serving as General Attendant. As a matter of fact, at the instance of the respondent authorities a Provident Fund (PF) account of the petitioner was also created by the Provident Fund Pension & Gratuity Department of the SBI. Mr. Nath submits that the petitioner has been continuously serving in the post of General Attendant on temporary basis since the year 2004. Notwithstanding the same and despite the fact that the persons above him in the panel, viz. Sri Sibendu Kumar Nath has already been regularized in service, no action has been taken by the Bank to regularize petitioner’s service although he has rendered more than 19 years of continuous service till today. That apart submits, Mr. Nath the petitioner has also not been paid his salary since the month of March, 2010 till today. Hence, this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus. Mr. Talukdar, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was empanelled due to the intervention of some of the senior officials of the Bank who were at the helm of officers at the relevant point of time. However, it is not a fact that the petitioner had served as General Attendant all along since the date of his appointment w.e.f. 15-06-2004. Mr. However, it is not a fact that the petitioner had served as General Attendant all along since the date of his appointment w.e.f. 15-06-2004. Mr. Talukdar submits that in between, the petitioner was relegated to the position of daily wage earner and therefore, it cannot be said that he has rendered continuous service in the post of General Attendant since the year 2004. By relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of UoI & Ors. Vs. Bishambar Dutt , reported in (1996) 11 SCC 341 , Mr. Talukdar submits that unless the appointment was made on regular basis, after due selection, the question of regularization in service does not arise in the eyes of law. I have considered the submission made at the bar and have also gone through the materials available on record. At the very outset, it needs to be noted herein that appointment of the petitioner was evidently made on the basis of his position in the panel notified by the SBI authorities on 26-02-2004 wherein the name of the petitioner appear at Sl. No. 2. The panel was evidently prepared on the basis of names being sponsored by the District Employment Exchange and after subjecting the candidates to interview. It is not in dispute that at the relevant point of time, filling up of Gr-IV post on the basis of names sponsored by the concerned District Employment Exchange was a permissible and acceptable mode of recruitment. Thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to join in the post of General Attendant on the basis of appointment order dated 15-06-2004. It may be correct to say that the appointment of the petitioner was made on temporary basis but materials on record, more particularly, the communication dated 07-05-2009 (Annexure-8) goes to show that the appointment of the petitioner was made against the post which had fallen vacant due to the demise of permanent sweeper of the Bank, viz. Prem Lal Balmiki who had died on 02-12-2003. Therefore, there is sufficient materials for this Court to presume that appointment of the petitioner, although was made on temporary basis, was against a permanent vacancy. Subsequently, the respondent might have shifted the petitioner from one position to another and it also appears that at some stage, the petitioner was allowed to draw only daily wages by denying him the salary and allowances. Subsequently, the respondent might have shifted the petitioner from one position to another and it also appears that at some stage, the petitioner was allowed to draw only daily wages by denying him the salary and allowances. However, there is nothing on record produced by the Bank to indicate the basis on which such treatment was meted out to the petitioner. It is to be borne in mind that a Gr-IV employee appointed on temporary basis will have very little bargaining power when it comes to assignment of duty to him by the authorities as he or she might be in constant fear of losing the job if he or she raises any protest against the treatment meted out to by the authorities. Therefore, unless the action of the Bank in converting the petitioner’s temporary appointment to a daily wage earner is found to be justified under the law, no credence can be given to such conversion in the eyes of law. In the present case, the learned counsel for the Bank has failed to produce any material to show that the appointment of the petitioner in the post of General Attendant on a pay scale was subsequently converted to the job of a daily wage earner. On the contrary, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has been continuously engaged in the service of the Bank since the year 2004 till today. Therefore, this Court is unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the appointment of the petitioner was either illegal and/ or irregular or that there was a break in service so as to deny him the benefit of regularization. Law is no doubt settled that regularization cannot be claimed by an employee as a matter of right. However, it is equally settled that denial of benefit of regularization to one employee while extending preferential treatment to another would not only be illegal but also highly discriminatory in the eyes of law. As noted above, the person appearing in Sl. No. 1, viz. Sibendu Kumar Nath has already been regularized in service after his initial appointment as General Attendant. However, even after having rendered continuous service for more than 19 years, the respondent Bank had denied similar treatment to the petitioner without there being any justifiable ground to do so. As noted above, the person appearing in Sl. No. 1, viz. Sibendu Kumar Nath has already been regularized in service after his initial appointment as General Attendant. However, even after having rendered continuous service for more than 19 years, the respondent Bank had denied similar treatment to the petitioner without there being any justifiable ground to do so. As such, I am of the view that the petitioner has made out a good case for interference by this Court. This writ petition, therefore, succeeds. The petition is disposed of with a direction upon the respondent to forthwith take necessary steps for regularization of services of the petitioner against the post of General Attendant (Sweeper). Insofar as the prayer for release of arrear salary is concerned, the respondent may make an enquiry in the matter and if found due, the arrear salary of the petitioner be released, subject however, to application of law of limitation in this regard, which would debar the claim of the petitioner to claim arrear salary beyond the period of three years from the date of institution of this writ petition. With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.” 4. A bare reading of the judgment and order dated 16-06-2023 would go to show that the said judgment was not based entirely on the point of parity between the writ petitioner and another employee, viz. Sibendu Kumar Nath, whose services had been regularized by the Bank as General Attendent but there were other grounds too, on which this Court had allowed the writ petition. However, I find that the Hon’ble Division Bench, while reversing the judgment and order dated 16-06-2023, did not expressed any opinion as regards the validity of the findings and conclusion recorded in the judgment dated 16- 06-2023 as regards the other grounds. Under such circumstances, this Court would be left with no option but to conclude that save and except the ground of parity drawn in respect of the writ petitioner and Sibendu Kumar Nath, no other finding and observation, recorded by this Court in the earlier judgment and order dated 16-06-2023 has been interfered with by the Division Bench. Under such circumstances, this Court would be left with no option but to conclude that save and except the ground of parity drawn in respect of the writ petitioner and Sibendu Kumar Nath, no other finding and observation, recorded by this Court in the earlier judgment and order dated 16-06-2023 has been interfered with by the Division Bench. Such being the position, save and except, dealing with the issue of parity in considering the claim of the writ petitioner vis-à-vis Sri Sibendu Kumar Nath, there is no scope for this Court to take a different view on any other issue in a manner which is contrary to the findings and observations recorded in the judgment dated 16-06-2023. Having held as above, this Court would now proceed to deal with the issue of parity, raised by the Bank, as here-under. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that Sibendu Kumar Nath and the writ petitioner herein were both empanelled at Sl. No. 1 and 2 respectively in a process conducted by the Bank through the Employment Exchange, for appointment of General Attendents. The writ petitioner, who was placed at Sl. No. 2 in the panel, was temporarily appointed as a Sweeper in place of Prem Lal Balmiki, Sweeper who had expired on 02-12-2003. In the communication dated 07-05-2009 issued by the Branch Manager, State Bank of India (SBI), Silchar Bazar Branch addressed to the Assistant General Manager (HR), SBI, LHO, Dispur, Guwahati (Annexure-8), it has been clearly mentioned that the writ petitioner had been appointed temporarily as General Attendent (Sweeper) on 15-06-2004, on fulltime basis, in place of Prem Lal Balmiki, who had expired on 02-12-2003 from the panel prepared for appointment of General Attendents for the district of Cachar which was prepared by the Regional Officer at Silchar. In the said letter, it has further been mentioned that the services of the petitioner was being utilized as fulltime Sweeper. His salary, including basic pay, DA and HRA had been shown to be Rs. 6277/- per month. 6. The respondent Bank has not denied or disputed the fact that Sibendu Kumar Nath, who was empanelled at Sl. No. 1 in the panel dated 26-02-2004, was subsequently regularized as General Attendent pursuant whereto, he was allowed to draw the pay of Rs. 26,310.51. 6277/- per month. 6. The respondent Bank has not denied or disputed the fact that Sibendu Kumar Nath, who was empanelled at Sl. No. 1 in the panel dated 26-02-2004, was subsequently regularized as General Attendent pursuant whereto, he was allowed to draw the pay of Rs. 26,310.51. However, the contention of the respondent Bank is that service of Sibendu Kumar Nath, who was earlier serving as a Canteen Boy w.e.f. September, 1990, was regularized pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in the settlement dated 30- 07-1996 entered into by and between the SBI and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation. As such, according to the Bank, there is no parity in between Sibendu Kumar Nath and the writ petitioner for the purpose of claiming the right of regularization in service. 7. Mr. M. Nath, learned Sr. counsel has argued that all the relevant facts have been correctly recorded by this Court in the judgment and order dated 16-06-2023 and the conclusion drawn by this Court to the effect that the writ petitioner was similarly situated as Sibendu Kumar Nath was also on the basis of documentary evidence produced before the Court at the time of hearing of this writ petition. Mr. Nath has, however, fairly submitted that there was no specific pleading in the writ petition as regard the nature of the procedure followed for regularization of service of Sibendu Kumar Nath, since such facts were not within the knowledge of his client. Mr. Nath has, therefore, argued that from the documents produced by the parties, the conclusion drawn by the Court as reflected in the judgment dated 16-06-2023 was inevitable. Mr. Nath has further submits that this Court had rightly drawn parity in between Sibendu Kumar Nath and the writ petitioner while issuing judgment and order dated 16-06-2023 and therefore, there is no valid ground to alter the said position at this stage. 8. The learned Sr. counsel for the writ petitioner has relied upon and referred to a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jaggo Vs. UoI & Ors. 8. The learned Sr. counsel for the writ petitioner has relied upon and referred to a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jaggo Vs. UoI & Ors. reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 3826 to submit that in the aforesaid decision, which was rendered subsequent to the judgment and order dated 16-06-2023, similar views have been expressed by the Supreme Court in more or less similar fact situation, by holding that part time or temporary workers discharging duty of permanent nature for a considerable period of time, would have a right to be considered for regularization. 9. Responding to the above argument, Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel for the respondent Bank has submitted that since the services of Sibendu Kumar Nath was regularized as per the obligation cast upon the Bank under the settlement dated 30-07- 1996, the writ petitioner, who is not covered under the settlement, cannot assert a similar right. Mr. Choudhury has, however, submitted, in his usual fairness, that both Sibendu Kumar Nath as well as the writ petitioner were empanelled on 26-02-2024 pursuant to the same administrative process but only the service of Sibendu Kumar Nath has been regularized till date. 10. There is no dispute about the fact that pursuant to a process initiated by the Bank on the basis of names sponsored by the District Employment Exchange, as many as three candidates, viz. 1. Sibendu Kumar Nath, 2. Paplu Nath (i.e. the writ petitioner) and 3. Babulal Rabidas were empanelled at Sl. No. 1 to 3 respectively. The panel was published under the signature of Assistant General Manager of SBI, i.e. the respondent No. 4 herein. Pursuant to the empanelment Sri Sibendu Kumar Nath and the writ petitioner herein, both were temporarily appointed as General Attendent (Sweeper) in the manner indicated hereinabove. However, although the services of Sibendu Kumar Nath was subsequently regularized, no order of regularization of services was issued in case of the writ petitioner. 11. In view of the observations made hereinabove and considering the fact that the learned counsel for the parties had addressed arguments only with regard to the principle of parity earlier applied by this Court, it would not be necessary for this Court to go into the other aspects of the matter, save and except, addressing the aforesaid issue. 12. 11. In view of the observations made hereinabove and considering the fact that the learned counsel for the parties had addressed arguments only with regard to the principle of parity earlier applied by this Court, it would not be necessary for this Court to go into the other aspects of the matter, save and except, addressing the aforesaid issue. 12. It may be correct to say that there is a Settlement under which, a temporary employee in subordinate cadre forming part of the panel was required to be given chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the Bank against a vacancy which had arisen up-to December, 1994 and to that extent, Sibendu Kumar Nath would undoubtedly come within the sweep of such condition contained in the settlement. However, there is nothing in the settlement which prevents the Bank from regularizing the services of any other temporary employee, if the claim for regularization in service is otherwise justified under the law. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the settlement dated 30-07- 1996 cannot come in the way of consideration of the case of the writ petitioner for regularization of his services, if he is otherwise entitled to an order of regularization in service, under the law. 13. That apart, this Court had also taken note of the fact that the services of Sibendu Kumar Nath was not directly regularized under the settlement dated 30-07-1996 but he was also made a part of the same process undertaken by the Bank for preparation of the panel dated 26-02-2004 by considering the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange whereby, Sibendu Kumar Nath was temporarily appointed. It was only thereafter that the services of the Sibendu Kumar Nath was regularized. The question is, why such similar treatment was not extended to the writ petitioner who was also included in the same panel. The issue of parity, if any, has to be understood vis-à-vis the rights of these two candidates, both of whom were included in the panel for appointment as General Attendent, in the light of their individual claims as empanelled candidates and not on the basis of any other extraneous factors as has been sought to be projected by the Bank. The issue of parity, if any, has to be understood vis-à-vis the rights of these two candidates, both of whom were included in the panel for appointment as General Attendent, in the light of their individual claims as empanelled candidates and not on the basis of any other extraneous factors as has been sought to be projected by the Bank. The question is, whether, the present is a case of violation of the fundamental rights of the writ petitioner guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution, whereby he has extended a discriminatory treatment under the law by denying him similar treatment as Sibendu Kumar Nath despite being similarly situated and notwithstanding the availability of vacancy? The answer to the said question, in the opinion of this Court has to be in the affirmative. 14. In the case of Jaggo (Supra) relied upon by Mr. Nath, several part time workers serving as Safaiwalis and Khalasis, performing essential duties for the CWC over the extended period of time, had approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking an order for regularization of their services. The learned CAT had, however, rejected their application, as a result of which, the applicants had approached the High Court of Judicature at Delhi by filing writ petition which was also dismissed. Not only that, after the Original Application was dismissed by the CAT, the services of the applicants were also terminated. Those original applicants had urged before the Court to recognize their long and continuous service having regard to the nature of work done by them and the fact that their entry into the service was not illegal. Accepting the plea raised by the original applicants, the Supreme Court had not only set aside the orders of termination but had also issued a direction to regularize their services forthwith. The observations made in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the said judgment would be relevant for the purpose of this case and therefore, the same are being reproduced here-in-below for ready reference:- “26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.” 15. As has been noted hereinabove, the writ petitioner was included in the panel of General Attendent (Sweeper) published on 26-02-2024 pursuant to a process initiated by the Bank. He was thereafter, appointed on fulltime basis as Attendent Sweeper on 15-06- 2004 against a permanent vacancy which had arisen due to the demise of the permanent sweeper, viz. Prem Lal Balmiki. Since then, the writ petitioner has been continuously serving as Sweeper in the Bank. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner’s entry into service was illegal or through the backdoor. Prem Lal Balmiki. Since then, the writ petitioner has been continuously serving as Sweeper in the Bank. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner’s entry into service was illegal or through the backdoor. Having regard to the nature of work done by the petitioner as General Attendent, it is also apparent that the services rendered by him, even as a temporary employee, was not only of continuous nature but the same formed a part of the essential services availed by the Bank. In this manner, the writ petitioner has rendered continuous service for more than 21 years as a temporary employee. Therefore, independent of the conditions contained in the Settlement, the writ petitioner has a right to be considered for regularization in service purely on the basis of merit of his claim as a long serving temporary employee of the Bank. 16. Having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (Supra) , this Court is of the unhesitant opinion that the respondents are under a legal obligation to regularize the services of the petitioner as General Attendent or any other equivalent post and also to pay full back-wages/ arrear salary, as may be due and payable to him under the law within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. The writ petition stands allowed. There would be no order as to cost.