ORDER : PULLA KARTHIK, J. 1. Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.1 Bank in continuing petitioners 2 to 457 on daily wage basis in Group C posts in its offices, without regularizing their services in furtherance of the directions issued by this Court in W.A. No.2013 of 2017, dated 14.02.2022, and rejecting their claim vide reply dated 09.05.2022, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned senior counsel, representing Smt.Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Mujeeb Kumar Sadashivuni, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent-Bank. 3. Learned senior counsel has submitted that petitioner No.1 is the Registered Trade Union and remaining petitioners numbering 456 are its members and working as Messenger/sweeper/casual labour in Head Office, Regional Offices and 400 branches of respondent-Bank, on temporary basis. Respondent No.1 is the Regional Rural Bank incorporated under Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, and it was sponsored by State Bank of Hyderabad, which is now merged with State Bank of India. Further, the Government of India after consultation with NABARD and the sponsor Bank notified the Rules relating to appointment and promotion of officers and other employees in the RRBs. Initially, Regional Rural Banks (Appointment & Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1988, were made. As per Rule 10 thereof, the posts of Messenger, Messenger- cum-Sweeper (Full/Part time), Driver, Driver-cum-Messenger, Security shall be filled in by the Committee of RRB after making a reference to the Employment Exchange or other Agencies catering to the welfare of SC/ST and Physically Handicapped Persons. Schedule- II of the said Rules list out the names of RRBs sponsored by various nationalized banks. Schedule-II thereof prescribes the method of recruitment to various posts. Subsequently, the 1988 Rules were Repealed by the Government of India with the Rules of 2010. Clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6 thereof deal with the category of posts, creation of posts, method of appointment and appointing authority respectively. The post of Messenger and Messenger-cum-Sweeper are now known as Office Attendant (Multi Purpose) Group-C. Learned senior counsel has contended that there was no recruitment to the post of Messenger in any of the Branches of respondent No.1 Bank, during the last 25 years, and petitioner Nos.2 to 457 were appointed in those posts on temporary basis and are continued without any break. All of them are working since more than 20 years and are being paid on daily wage basis. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to certain lists from the material papers showing the length of service of each of the petitioners for proving the factum of his/her working in their respective branch of respondent No.1-Bank. Learned senior counsel has contended that petitioners 2 to 457 have been working in various branches of respondent No.1-Bank since more than a decade, still they are continued through outsourcing basis only to avoid the regularization of their service as well as the benefits flowing therefrom. Further, the working hours of petitioners 2 to 457 are from 10 AM to 6 PM, but they normally stretch upto 9 PM every day. The duties performed by them are perennial in nature and are essentially connected with the maintenance/upkeep and functioning of the branches of the Bank and none of the branches of the respondent-Bank can function without the duties performed by petitioners 2 to 457 and it is an essential post. As such, the petitioner No.1 Union has been requesting for regularizing the services of the members, but the Bank has not taken any concrete steps for the same. The Management of respondent No.1 Bank has called for information/date about part time sweepers working in all its branches in the prescribed proforma specifically for the purpose of regularization of their service vide internal letter dated 14.07.2010. Though the said information was forwarded branch-wise, formulation of any Scheme had not yet taken place. It is further stated that respondent No.1 has issued a tender document dated 13.07.2017 calling bids for the purpose of housekeeping services on outsourcing basis. Clause 15 of the tender document says that the successful tenderer may engage the persons working as casual labour on daily wage basis in the branches of the Bank and no security is provided to the existing persons working in Head office, Regional Officers and 400 branch offices. It is further contended that the conduct of respondent Bank in continuing the members of the petitioner-Union for more than 20 years on casual basis without regularizing their services is illegal and unconstitutional. It is further contended that the conduct of respondent Bank in continuing the members of the petitioner-Union for more than 20 years on casual basis without regularizing their services is illegal and unconstitutional. The post of Office Attendant, Group-C (formerly known as Sweeper/Sweeper-cum-Messenger) is a sanctioned post under the service regulations of the Bank and it has to be filled up on regular basis but the persons cannot be engaged in those posts on casual basis for years together. Such conduct of the bank would attract the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. It is further contended that most of the Rural Banks are adopting the same method as is being done by the respondent Bank herein by engaging persons to do the work of group C posts on payment of daily wages without undertaking any recruitment on regular basis in accordance with the Rules in force. In several such situations, the persons aggrieved have approached this Hon’ble Court and the same were adjudicated and orders were passed directing the Management of the concerned Banks to formulate a Scheme to regularize the services of the petitioners therein by relaxing the requirements of age and academic qualifications. In W.P.No.24779 of 2011 vide order dated 27.12.2017, this Hon’ble Court has issued such directions against Chaitanya Grameena Bank and Godavari Grameena Bank and the same were implemented. Further, while dealing similar issue in respect of Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank in W.P.No.15294 of 2014 & batch this Court vide order dated 09.01.2020 has disposed of said writ petitions on similar lines and the same was confirmed in Writ Appeal No.147/2021, dated 25.04.2022. Further, when Writ Appeal No.2013/2017 was heard, this Hon’ble Court disposed of the same on 14.02.2022 directing the petitioners to submit their respective documents to the respondent Bank seeking regularization of their services along with relevant material and judgments, within one month and the Bank was directed to consider and decide the same within two months thereafter. In pursuance to the said directions, the petitioners have submitted representations before the respondent Bank enclosing the particulars relating to their academic qualifications and other information relating to the service put in by them in the Bank. In pursuance to the said directions, the petitioners have submitted representations before the respondent Bank enclosing the particulars relating to their academic qualifications and other information relating to the service put in by them in the Bank. The said claim was rejected by impugned order dated 09.05.2022 stating that appointment to Group C posts cannot be done by any office of the Bank except Chairman, on casual basis that too for a period of 90 days in an year and that since the petitioners have been working for intermittent special period, their engagement is unauthorized and their services cannot be regularized. Further, the non-core activities like sweeping, cleaning and maintenance, etc. can be outsourced after Board Circular Resolution dated 13.04.2015, issued by following the recommendations of S.K. Mitra Committee on HR Policy for RRBs, by calling for tenders. W.P.No.28273 of 2017 filed challenging the tender process was dismissed on 30.11.2017 by this Hon’ble Court and hence the action of the Bank in outsourcing the services of sweeping, cleaning and maintenance is upheld by this Court. It is further contended that the contents of the impugned order dated 09.05.2022 are untenable and baseless and most of the petitioners have been working for last two decades and they were shifted to outsourcing method only in the year 2017. Therefore, it is unreasonable on the part of the Bank to say that since outsource has commenced, there are no Group C posts in the Bank. But, the fact remains that Group C posts are sanctioned posts under the Regulations in force and the Bank has to fill up by following the recruitment process. But, the Bank has given a go-by to the same and has been engaging the persons on daily wage basis for years together in its Head office, Regional Officers and branches to get the work which is perennial in nature done without regularizing their services. Further, the Bank is avoiding payment of remuneration to petitioners in a scale of pay and to allow various other monetary and non-monetary benefits to them which are attached to the regular post in the Bank. Further, the Bank is avoiding payment of remuneration to petitioners in a scale of pay and to allow various other monetary and non-monetary benefits to them which are attached to the regular post in the Bank. 3.1 Further, the Management of the Bank has recommended to the Chairman on 31.03.2018 to permit payment of bonus to casual labourers at branches/offices for the financial years 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 under Payment of Bonus Act and ultimately the same was approved and payments were made to all the petitioners herein. 3.2 It is further submitted that the present writ petition was admitted and interim order was passed on 22.08.2022 directing the Bank to maintain status quo and the facts relating to orders passed by this Court in respect of similarly situated persons working in Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, which is also sponsored by the State Bank of India, as in the present case. In said Grameena Vikas Bank also, the Bank has been continuing several persons by way of outsourcing agency in the sub staff post and those persons have approached this Hon’ble Court in W.P. Nos.15294 of 2014 & batch for regularization of their services and those cases were allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 09.01.2020 directing the Bank to formulate a scheme for regularization and to consider the case of the petitioners therein and the same was confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.147 of 2020 & batch vide order dated 25.04.2020. Further, the SLP filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also dismissed vide order dated 12.08.2022. Thereafter, the Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank has framed a scheme for regularization of casual/daily wage workers as Office Attendants (multi purpose) in Group-C vide Circular dated 13.02.2023 and the said Circular made it mandatory to appear for a written online test, prescribing outer age limit of 28 years at the time of initial engagement and also confined the scheme only to those casual/daily wage workers who have rendered service for 10 years or more as on the cut-off date. Learned senior counsel has contended that the grievance of the petitioners herein is fully covered by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.6541/2023 & batch vide order dated 21.07.2023, as confirmed in W.A. No.1167/2024 & batch vide order dated 31.01.2024. Learned senior counsel has contended that the grievance of the petitioners herein is fully covered by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.6541/2023 & batch vide order dated 21.07.2023, as confirmed in W.A. No.1167/2024 & batch vide order dated 31.01.2024. Further, the sponsor Bank in those cases and in the present case is one and the same i.e. State Bank of India. Therefore, the present writ petition may also be disposed of in the same terms of the order dated 21.07.2023 passed in W.P. Nos.6541 of 2023 and prayed to issue necessary directions to the respondents. 4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the respondent-Bank is disputing the engagement of services of each of petitioners 2 to 457 and each of them have to independently approach the Labour Court and exhibit documentary evidence to prove their respective cases. Further, there is no employer and employee relationship between respondent-Bank and petitioners 2 to 457 herein as they were unauthorizedly engaged without following due process of law. The Government of India has appointed Mithra Committee to study and submit a report about the categories of work in Grameena Banks which can be outsourced. The said Committee submitted its report recommending outsourcing of Sweeping and Cleaning works. Upon the directions of the NABARD, all the Boards of RRBs including the respondent-Bank has adopted the recommendations of Mitra Committee and tenders were called for in the year 2017 for the purpose of outsourcing the said works. It is further stated that petitioner No.1-Union filed W.P. No.28273 of 2017 against the action of the Bank in calling for tenders for outsourcing the housekeeping services on the ground that such action was illegal. However, vide order dated 30.11.2017, this Court has dismissed the said Writ Petition holding that the issues raised therein were disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into in a Writ Petition. Further, liberty was granted to the members of the petitioner No.1- Union to approach the Labour Court by invoking the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. Challenging the same, petitioner No.1-Union filed W.A. No.2013 of 2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 09.05.2022 directing the members of the Union to submit their respective claims to the Bank seeking regularization of their services along with relevant material, upon which, the Bank was directed to consider and decide the same. Challenging the same, petitioner No.1-Union filed W.A. No.2013 of 2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 09.05.2022 directing the members of the Union to submit their respective claims to the Bank seeking regularization of their services along with relevant material, upon which, the Bank was directed to consider and decide the same. Accordingly, the petitioners have submitted their representations and the same were rejected on 09.05.2022. Therefore, the remedy available to the petitioners is to approach the Labour Court as the Management is seriously disputing their right for regularization and the Writ Petition is not maintainable either under law or on facts of the case. Learned Standing Counsel has further contended that there are no sanctioned posts of Office Attendant Group-C and therefore the question of appointing petitioners 2 to 457 in those posts does not arise. Further, it is false to state that all the petitioners are working for more than 20 years and are paid on daily wage basis. In fact, none of the petitioners 2 to 457 are the temporary employee of the respondent Bank as the intermittent period for which they worked was unauthorized and the Bank never authorized engagement of any casual workers. All the petitioners were unauthorizedly engaged by the branches without following any selection process and without the prior approval of the Chairman of the Bank, in contravention of Regulation 4 of Service Regulations. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioners do not fall within the ambit of temporary employees and they do not have any right to seek regularization of their services. The respondents seriously disputed the allegations/assertions that petitioners 2 to 457 have been working for more than 20 years and the said disputed questions cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. 4.1 Learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that while dismissing W.P. No.28273 of 2017, the petitioner Union has not furnished the particulars of its members. Even if any documents are furnished, the genuineness and veracity of the same cannot be adjudicated in a Writ Petition as they have to be tested by way of cross-examination and the said exercise has to be undertaken only by the Labour Court. Even if any documents are furnished, the genuineness and veracity of the same cannot be adjudicated in a Writ Petition as they have to be tested by way of cross-examination and the said exercise has to be undertaken only by the Labour Court. It is further submitted that there is no provision for appointment of Office Attendant Group C in the respondent Bank and respondent Bank has no power to regularize the services of casual workers as the engagement of the persons as casual workers will be through back door method i.e. unauthorized engagement in violation of Regulation 4 and the Bank has no power to regularize the services of casual workers. Further, the decision in W.P.No.29273 of 2017 upholding the exercise of calling for tenders and outsourcing the sweeping and cleaning works attained finality, the petitioners again made the similar allegations only for creating cause of action for filing the writ petition. Further, the directions issued by this Court against other Grameena Banks are not binding on this respondent-Bank as the respondent No.1-Bank is a separate and distinct entity governed by its Board of Directions and the facts in those cases are altogether different from the present case. The petitioners herein, who are claiming themselves as casual workers have to approach the Labour Court to establish their case with the support of documentary evidence proving that each of them were engaged through proper selection method against sanctioned post and working continuously in the Bank. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel has contended that the respondents are justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioners and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the material on record. 6. As can be seen from the record, respondent No.1-Bank is a Regional Rural Bank incorporated under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, sponsored by State Bank of India. 7. This Court apt to refer that while dealing with the issue of regularization, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its latest judgment in Jaggo v. Union of India , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 has made the following remarks: “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. 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.” 8. Further, in case of Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, which is also sponsored by State Bank of India like the respondent No.1-Bank herein, while dealing with similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.15294 of 2014 & batch vide order dated 09.01.2020 has directed the Bank to formulate a Scheme for regularization and to consider the case of the petitioners therein. The said order was also confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.147 of 2020 & batch, dated 25.04.2022. Further, the SLP preferred by the said Bank was also dismissed on 12.08.2022. Thereafter, in compliance of the orders of this Court the APGVB has framed a Scheme for Regularization of the Casual/daily wage workers as Office Attendant in Group C post vide Circular dated 13.02.2023. As per the said Circular, it is mandatory to appear for written online test and the outer age limit of 28 years at the time of initial engagement was also prescribed and the said Scheme was also confined to those casual/daily wage workers who have rendered 10 years or more service as on the cut-off date. 9. The facts in the present case and the grievance of the petitioners herein are similar to that of W.P.Nos.15294 of 2014 & batch. 9. The facts in the present case and the grievance of the petitioners herein are similar to that of W.P.Nos.15294 of 2014 & batch. Following the same, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present Writ Petition with the following directions: a) The respondents shall evolve a scheme for regularization and grant regularization of services to all the petitioners, subject to assessment of their suitability; b) Petitioners be subjected to selection process to the posts of Office Attendants (Multipurpose) without insisting that their names should be sponsored by Employment Exchange or any other agency; c) While considering for such recruitment, having regard to length of service rendered by the petitioners, the Bank may evolve some procedure/scheme to grant weightage to petitioners for the service rendered by them subject to such service being satisfactory. Their eligibility as to age and educational qualification has to be assessed as directed in the order dated 27.12.2017 in W.P.No.24779 of 2011; d) It is made clear that such consideration is confined only to those persons who are actually in service and it is not applicable to the persons who have left the service or died. e) The entire exercise should be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six months.” 10. The respondent No.1-Bank is directed to consider the case of petitioners 2 to 457 for regularization, in terms stated supra, without reference to the impugned rejection orders. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.