Ramachandra B a Vs the State Bank of India

AGED 59 YEARS, S/O P. RAMAPPA, PRASHANTHI NILAYAM, YELLAPPA GARDEN, NEAR GANAPATHI TEMPLE, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, DEVASANDRA, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶29

GOPINATH B.N., AGED 55 YEARS, S/O NARAYANA SWAMY, KAVERI NILAYA, BYRAPPANAHALLI, BANNERGHATTA POST, BENGALURU - 560 083.

¶30

CHANDRASHEKAR B, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O M. B BASAVARAJAPPA, GURUKULA SCHOOL COMPOUND, WESTERN EXTENSION, TUMKUR - 572 102.

¶31

MUNIRATHNA P., AGED 55 YEARS, S/O PAPAIAH, NO.210, MANJUNATHA TEMPLE, SBM COLONY, B.S.K. 1^ST STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 050.

¶32

SHANKARAIAH, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O KENCHANASIDDE GOWDA,

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:32149 WP No. 12614 of 2022 C/W WP No. 166 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

NO.22, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 040.

¶36

R.B.RAJA RAO, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O BYREJI RAO, BHAVANI KOPPALU, DODDAGARUDNAN HALLI POST, BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK - 571 416.

¶37

MANTESWAMY B.M., AGED 52 YEARS, S/O LATE M. MAHADEVAIAH, BENDARAVAADI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA - 571 430.

¶38

SIDDA RAJU M, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O MARISIDDAIAH, KAVERI ROAD, KOLLEGALA - 571 440.

¶39

THIRUMALA RAO B.S., AGED 58 YEARS, S/O B.G.SATHYANARAYANA RAO, NO.20, (OUT HOUSE), WEST ANJENEYA TEMPLE STREET, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004.

¶40

NAGARAJA K.N., AGED 58 YEARS,

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:32149 WP No. 12614 of 2022 C/W WP No. 166 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

S/O NARASIMHAIAH, D.NO.80/1, 13^TH CROSS, 1^ST K BLOCK, KETHAMARANAHALLI, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶44

LOKESHWARAPPA H.L., S/O H.M.LINGAPPA, AGED 60 YEARS, R/AT HALETHIMMANAHALLI, MADUGIRI TALUK, PURUVARA POST, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 175.

¶45

P.M.SURESH, S/O OF MURUGESH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT SRIDEVI NILAYA, V.P.EXTENSION, 1^ST CROSS, OPPOSITE: CHOUDESHWARI TEMPLE, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶46

…PETITIONERS

¶47

(BY SRI. KARUNAKARA P., ADVOCATE)

¶48

AND:

¶49

THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONSHIP DEPARTMENT, K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:32149 WP No. 12614 of 2022 C/W WP No. 166 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

THE CHAIRMAN,

¶53

STATE BANK OF INDIA, CORPORATE CENTRE, STATE BANK BHAVAN, NARIMAN PAINT, MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 021.

¶54

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND GROUP EXECUTIVE, (ASSOCIATES AND SUBSIDIARIES),

¶55

STATE BANK OF INDIA, CORPORATE CENTRE, STATE BANK BHAVAN, NARIMAN POINT, MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 021.

¶56

THE GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION DEPARTMENT CORPORATE CENTRE, STATE BANK BHAVAN, NARIMAN POINT, MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 021.

¶57

THE CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA, CORPORATE CENTRE, STATE BANK BHAVAN, NARIMAN POINT, MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 021.

¶58

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND GROUP EXECUTIVE (ASSOCIATES AND SUBSIDIARIES),

¶59

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:32149 WP No. 12614 of 2022 C/W WP No. 166 of 2026

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

STATE BANK OF INDIA, CORPORATE CENTRE, STATE BANK BHAVAN, NARIMAN POINT, MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 021.

¶62

THE GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION DEPARTMENT, CORPORATE CENTRE, STATE BANK BHAVAN, NARIMAN POINT, MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 021.

¶63

…RESPONDENTS

¶64

(BY SRI. T.P.MUTHANNA., ADVOCATE)

¶65

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE DIFFERENCE IN EMOLUMENTS TO THE PETITIONERS FOR THE SERVICE ALREADY RENDERED BY THEM BEFORE THE APPOINTMENT 05.09.2009 AND DIRECTS THE RESPONDENT TO PAY ALL OTHER SERVICE BENEFITS AND ETC.,

¶66

IN WP NO. 166/2026

¶67

BETWEEN:

¶68

SHRI. A.N.GANGANARASAIAH, S/O NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, SRI LAXMINARASIMHASWAMI NILAYA, MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD,

¶69

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:32149 WP No. 12614 of 2022 C/W WP No. 166 of 2026

HC-KAR

UPPARAHALLI,

TUMKUR - 572 136.

SHRI. NARASEEYAPPA, S/O NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, KUMKUMANAHALLI, KAMBATHAHALLI POST, TUMKUR - 572 118.

¶74

SHRI. KARIYAPPA A., S/O. AJJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, NO.21, NARASIMHA REDDY BUILDING, HEBBAGODI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL - 560 099.

¶75

SHRI. RIYAZ PASHA, S/O DASTHAGIRI SAB H. M, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, HAGALAVADI VILLAGE, GUBBI THALUK, TUMKUR - 572 117.

¶76

SHRI. PAMPAPATHY, S/O A.K. HONNURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY, SATHYANARAYANAPET, BELLARY - 583 101.

¶77

SHRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S., S/O SANJEEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, KODAGADALA POST,

¶78

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:32149 WP No. 12614 of 2022 C/W WP No. 166 of 2026

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

PURAVARA HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR - 572 132.

¶81

SHRI. MADHUKAR H.B, S/O BALAYYA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R.K ROAD, HOSANAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 418.

¶82

SHRI. KALINGAPPA A. K, S/O BHOOTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS LB NAGAR, JOG ROAD, SAGAR - 577 401.

¶83

SHRI. SURESH KHARVI, S/O SANJEEVA KHARVI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, BIRI HOUSE, OMBATTU DANDIGE, PADUKERE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI - 576 201.

¶84

SHRI. D.S. VENKATESHA, AGED ABOVE 62 YEARS, S/O D. SRINIVASAPPA, T.R. NAGARA PUMP HOUSE ROAD, CHALLAKERE TOWN, CHITRADURGA - 577 522.

¶85

BASAVARAJ C, S/O CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 2^ND CROSS,

¶86

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:32149 WP No. 12614 of 2022 C/W WP No. 166 of 2026

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

VIJAYANAGAR, APMC YARD,

¶89

SAGAR - 577 401.

¶90

...PETITIONERS

¶91

(BY SRI. KARUNAKARA P., ADVOCATE)

¶92

AND:

¶93

THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONSHIP DEPARTMENT, K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶94

THE CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA, CORPORATE CENTRE, STATE BANK BHAVAN, NARIMAN POINT, MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 021.

¶95

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND GROUP EXECUTIVE, (ASSOCIATES AND SUBSIDIARIES), STATE BANK OF INDIA, CORPORATE CENTRE, STATE BANK BHAVAN, NARIMAN POINT, MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 021.

¶96

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:32149 WP No. 12614 of 2022 C/W WP No. 166 of 2026

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

THE GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION DEPARTMENT CORPORATE CENTRE, STATE BANK BHAVAN, NARIMAN POINT, MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 021.

¶99

THE CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA, CORPORATE CENTRE, STATE BANK BHAVAN, NARIMAN POINT, MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 021.

¶100

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND GROUP EXECUTIVE (ASSOCIATES AND SUBSIDIARIES), STATE BANK OF INDIA, CORPORATE CENTRE, STATE BANK BHAVAN, NARIMAN POINT, MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 021.

¶101

THE GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION DEPARTMENT, CORPORATE CENTRE, STATE BANK BHAVAN, NARIMAN POINT, MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 021.

¶102

…RESPONDENTS

¶103

(BY SRI. T.P.MUTHANNA., ADVOCATE)

¶104

12 -

¶105

NC: 2026:KHC:32149 WP No. 12614 of 2022 C/W WP No. 166 of 2026

¶106

HC-KAR

¶107

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE DIFFERENCE IN EMOLUMENTS TO THE PETITIONERS FOR THE SERVICE ALREADY RENDERED BY THEM BEFORE THEIR APPOINTMENT IN THE MONTH OF JULY AND 2009 AND DIRECT TO RESPONDENT TO GRANT ALL OTHER SERVICE BENEFITS AND ETC.,

¶108

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶109

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶110

ORAL ORDER

¶111

The petitioners filed these writ petitions seeking the following prayer:

¶112

In W.P.No.12614/2022:

¶113

(1) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the difference in emoluments to the petitioners for the service already rendered by them before the appointment 5^th September 2009 and direct to the respondent to grant all other service benefits.

¶114

NC: 2026:KHC:32149 WP No. 12614 of 2022 C/W WP No. 166 of 2026

¶115

13 -

¶116

HC-KAR

¶117

(2) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to regularize the service of the petitioner prior to the 5^th September 2009 and give all consequential benefits to the petitioners as such as increment and promotion.

¶118

(3) Grant such other or further relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost in the interest of justice and equity.

¶119

In W.P.No.166/2026:

¶120

(1) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the difference in emoluments to the petitioners for the service already rendered by them before their appointment in the month of July and 2009 and direct to the respondent to grant all other service benefits.

¶121

(2) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to regularize the service of the petitioner prior to the 5^th September 2009 and give all consequential benefits to the petitioners as such as increment and promotion.

¶122

(3) Grant such other or further relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and

¶123

14 -

¶124

NC: 2026:KHC:32149 WP No. 12614 of 2022 C/W WP No. 166 of 2026

¶125

HC-KAR

¶126

circumstances of the case including cost in the interest of justice and equity.

¶127

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these petitions are as follows:

¶128

T he petitioners were inducted into service of State Bank of India on the basis of temporary sub staff in 1985 or so. They were rendered services for more than 240 days in each calendar year. Based on the services rendered by them, they requested the respondent bank to regularize their services. Their demand for regularization was not considered for a long duration. It is after two and half decades later the respondent bank has given them a fresh appointment on permanent basis on 05.09.2009. The petitioners are now aged around 50 to 60 years and are nearing the retirement age. The respondent bank has given them a fresh appointment, instead of

¶129

regularizing their services from the date of their initial appointment. The respondent bank ought to

¶130

NC: 2026:KHC:32149 WP No. 12614 of 2022 C/W WP No. 166 of 2026

¶131

15 -

¶132

HC-KAR

¶133

have regularized their services and paid them equal pay for the equal work done by the petitioners. The petitioners were paid a meager salary, whereas the regular employees were rendering the very same job were getting hand some salary and also yearly increment, promotions and other benefits.

¶134

The respondent bank deprived the petitioners, their equal right to get equal salary, without giving the benefit of salary, perks and increments by not giving the effect to the appointment from retrospective effect i.e., from the date of their initial appointment. The petitioners have rendered their services for more than 10 years and they are eligible for pension. The respondents have assured the petitioners to regularize their services until they cross the age of getting any other employment elsewhere. The respondents have not given appointment at their retirement age thereby denied them getting the pension. Hence, this writ petition.

¶135

16 -

¶136

NC: 2026:KHC:32149 WP No. 12614 of 2022 C/W WP No. 166 of 2026

¶137

HC-KAR

¶138

The respondents filed the statement of objections contending that there is no cause of action to file the writ petitions and denied the averments made in the writ petitions. It is contended that the petitioners were appointed as Peons vide appointment letters dated 25.08.2009 with effect from 05.09.2009. The emoluments, probation etc., of the petitioners were also mentioned in the appointment letters. The petitioners are claiming the financial benefits such as regular pay scale, annual increments and other consequential benefits on par with regular employees by including the length of temporary services they rendered before their appointment as permanent employees.

¶139

It is contended that the Union was demanding to absorb the persons who were engaged as Peons on temporary basis and who have worked continuously for 240 days and more in any calendar years (block of 12 months) in various branches/offices on

¶140

17 -

¶141

NC: 2026:KHC:32149 WP No. 12614 of 2022 C/W WP No. 166 of 2026

¶142

HC-KAR

¶143

temporary basis. The management of State Bank of Mysore and State Bank of Mysore employees Union entered into a settlement for appointment of temporary Peons on permanent basis who have worked more than 240 days. Under the terms of

¶144

settlement, it was agreed that in respect of appointment of a temporary Peons who had worked for more than 240 days, their appointment on permanent basis was agreed upon and as a consequence, appointment orders were issued to those persons who had completed 240 days of service in a block period of 12 months in any calendar years. As a result of settlement, the petitioners were appointed as permanent Peons as per the appointment order dated 25.08.2009.

¶145

The petitioners were appointed in terms of the said settlement. The petitioners cannot get any benefit other than what has been agreed in the memorandum of settlement. The petitioners cannot

¶146

18 - NC: 2026:KHC:32149 WP No. 12614 of 2022 C/W WP No. 166 of 2026

¶147

HC-KAR

¶148

agitate and feel aggrieved with the terms and conditions of settlement, under which, they were appointed on permanent basis. It is also contended that in similar two writ petitions i.e., in WP No. 3281 of 2016 and W.P.No.51860 of 2016, where the petitioners in the said writ petitions were appointed in terms of the settlement stated above, and the said writ petition came to be dismissed. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petitions.

¶149

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶150

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are serving in the respondent bank for more than 10 years and their services have to be regularized from the date of initial appointment and not in terms of the memorandum of settlement executed between the Union and the respondent bank. He also submits that the right of the employee

¶151

NC: 2026:KHC:32149 WP No. 12614 of 2022 C/W WP No. 166 of 2026

¶152

19 -

¶153

HC-KAR

¶154

cannot be taken away by Union by executing the memorandum of settlement.

¶155

To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Ranjeet Singh vs. State of Punjab and also placed reliance on the judgments of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in cases of Jagadamba vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2025 SCC Online Kar 22894 and Nanda Baburao SCC Online Kar 22327 . Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petitions.

¶156

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents submits that similarly placed petitioners approached this court in WP No.3281 of 2016 connected with WP No. 51860 of 2016. He submits that this court considering the memorandum of settlement executed between the Union and the Bank have dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 26.09.2023. The order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench has attained a

¶157

20 - NC: 2026:KHC:32149 WP No. 12614 of 2022 C/W WP No. 166 of 2026

¶158

HC-KAR

¶159

finality. He submits that the petitioners were appointed on the basis of a memorandum of settlement. Now the petitioners cannot take U-turn to the terms and conditions mentioned in the memorandum of settlement. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶160

Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶161

It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners were working as Peons in the erstwhile bank and thereafter the erstwhile bank was merged into State Bank of India and thereafter a memorandum of settlement came to be executed in between the erstwhile bank i.e., State Bank of Mysore and State Bank of Mysore employees Union on 16.07.2009. From the perusal of the Memorandum of Settlement executed in between the erstwhile bank and the State Bank of Mysore Employees Union, the relevant

¶162

21 -

¶163

NC: 2026:KHC:32149 WP No. 12614 of 2022 C/W WP No. 166 of 2026

¶164

HC-KAR

¶165

portion of the Memorandum of Settlement reads as

¶166

follows:

¶167

“The Memorandum of Settlement entered into between the management of the State Bank of Mysore, an Associate of State Bank of India constituted under State Bank of India (subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, having its Head Office at KG Road, Bangalore 560 009, represented by its General Manager (Operations), herein after referred to as the ‘Bank’ and State Bank of Mysore Employees’ Union, represented by its General Secretary, herein after referred to as the ‘Union’ on 16.07.2009. In respect of appointment of temporary peons on permanent basis who have worked for more than 240 days continuously in a block period of 12 months in any calendar year.

¶168

Whereas a demand was made by the Union vide letter No. GS:ATE:007 dated 04.03.2009 demanding the Bank to appoint temporary peons on permanent basis numbering 253, who have worked continuously for more than 240 days in a

¶169

22 -

¶170

NC: 2026:KHC:32149 WP No. 12614 of 2022 C/W WP No. 166 of 2026

¶171

HC-KAR

¶172

block of period of 12 months in any calendar year in various branches/offices of the bank and who are empanelled by the bank on various occasions.

¶173

And whereas considering the demand of the Union and the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, particularly those contained in Section 25F, 25G and 25H, the Bank has taken a decision to appoint the temporary peons on permanent basis who have worked continuously for more than 240 days in a block period of 12 months in any calendar year in various branches/offices of the bank as a special case in respect of identified vacancies and as a one time measure only subject to they being considered for such appointment in a selection process in which their suitability would be determined. The temporary peons who have completed 240 days of service are empanelled by the Bank on various occasions and only such temporary peons are empanelled would be considered for appointment on a temporary basis.”

¶174

NC: 2026:KHC:32149 WP No. 12614 of 2022 C/W WP No. 166 of 2026

¶175

23 -

¶176

HC-KAR

¶177

On the basis of a memorandum of settlement, the

¶178

respondent bank has appointed the petitioners on a permanent basis. The petitioners having accepted the appointment on a permanent basis based on the memorandum of settlement executed between the then erstwhile bank and erstwhile bank Union. Now the petitioners cannot contend that the memorandum of settlement executed between the bank and Union is not binding on the petitioners. In the similarly placed petitioners approached this Court in W.P.No. 3281 of 2016 connected with WP No. 51860 of 2016. The Co-ordinate Bench, considering the terms and conditions of a Memorandum of Settlement has dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 26.09.2023.

¶179

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners therein did not challenge the order passed in the aforesaid writ petitions. The order

¶180

24 -

¶181

NC: 2026:KHC:32149 WP No. 12614 of 2022 C/W WP No. 166 of 2026

¶182

HC-KAR

¶183

passed in the aforesaid writ petitions has attended a finality.

¶184

The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed a reliance on the judgments of the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the cases of Jagadamba vs. State of Karnataka and Nanda Baburao Matale vs. State of Karnataka . There is no dispute in regard to the proposition laid down by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court. If the employees have served more than 10 years, their services are entitled for regularization of services.

¶185

Admittedly in the instant case, The petitioners were appointed on a permanent basis based on the memorandum of settlement executed between the State Bank of Mysore and State Bank of Mysore Union on 16.07.2009. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the case on hand.

¶186

25 - NC: 2026:KHC:32149 WP No. 12614 of 2022 C/W WP No. 166 of 2026

¶187

HC-KAR

¶188

Further the petitioners have relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Ranjeet Singh vs. State of Punjab . Admittedly, in the said case, the petitioner therein has given an undertaking. Admittedly in the instant case, the petitioners have not given any undertaking, but the Union has entered into a memorandum of settlement with the erstwhile bank. All the terms and conditions of the memorandum of settlement are binding on the members of the Union. Thus, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable in the case on hand.

¶189

Considering the order passed in W.P.No.3281 of 2016 connected with W.P.No.51860 of 2016, I concur with the findings recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid writ petitions. Hence, I do not find any grounds to entertain the writ petitions.

¶190