This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

click here for IIIF manifest

रजिस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-19122020-223791

CG-DL-W-19122020-223791

xxxGIDExxx

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 46] नई दिल्ली, दिसम्बर 6—दिसम्बर 12, 2020, शनिवार/ अग्रहायण 15— अग्रहायण 21, 1942 No. 46] NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 6 – DECEMBER 12, 2020, SATURDAY/AGRAHAYANA 15–AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence)

वित्त मंत्रालय

(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 5 अक्तूबर, 2020

का.आ. .1049—कें द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 (1987 में यथा संशोधित) के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) के अनुसरण में राष्ट्रीय कृ षि और ग्रामीण विकास बैंक और नेशनल इंश्योरेंस कम्पनी लिमिटेड के सूचीबद्ध कार्यालयों को अधिसूचित करती है, जिनके 80% से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है : -

5832 GI/202

(2975)2976 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[फा. सं. 11016/2/2017-हिं.(अधि.)]

राजीव कु मार, सहायक निदेशक (राजभाषा)

राजभाषा नियम 1976 के नियम 10 (4) के अंतर्गत अधिसूचित किए जाने वाले कार्यालयों की सूची

1. राष्ट्रीय कृ षि और ग्रामीण विकास बैंक

6. राष्ट्रीय कृ षि और ग्रामीण विकास बैंक 'यूफे ट करमीहपेनबिल्डिंग'

पुन्नेनरोड, स्टेच्यू

2 और 3 मंजिल प्लॉट नं.28(2)

तिरूवनंतपुरम– 695001

धनखेती, शिलांग– 793003

के रल

मेघालय

7. राष्ट्रीय कृ षि और ग्रामीण विकास बैंक 2. राष्ट्रीय कृ षि और ग्रामीण विकास बैंक

शिल्पानिगम भवन

जी.एस.रोड, दिसपुर

ग्राउं डफ्लोर, खेजूरबागान,

गुवाहाटी- 781006

जिंजर होटल के पास

असम

पो.ऑ. कु जाबन,

अगरतला– 799 006

त्रिपुरा

3. राष्ट्रीय कृ षि और ग्रामीण विकास बैंक

एनएससीबीमुख्यालय प्रशासनिक बिल्डिंग

चौथी मंजिल, खेरमहल,

8. राष्ट्रीय कृ षि और ग्रामीण विकास बैंक सकु र् लररोड

रामहलुनरोड (उत्तर)

दीमापुर– 797112

बंगावन,

नागालैंड

आइजॉल– 796014

मिजोरम

4. राष्ट्रीय कृ षि और ग्रामीण विकास बैंक

ओम निवास, चर्च रोड

9. राष्ट्रीय कृ षि और ग्रामीण विकास बैंक गंगटोक- 737101

1-1-61, आरटीसीक्रास रोड

सिक्किम

मुशीराबाद

हैदराबाद – 500 020

तेलंगाणा

5. बैंकरग्रामीण विकास संस्थान

बोलपुरलॉज,

10. नेशनल इंश्योरेंस कम्पनी लिमिटेड,

पो.ऑ. बोलपुर

जिला –बीरभूम– 731204

दिल्ली क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय -4,

बोलपुर

कन्नेक्टस बिल्डिंग, 8वां तल,

भवभूति मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-02.

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 5th October, 2020

S.O. 1049.— In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government, hereby notifies the listed Offices of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development and National Insurance Company limited, more than 80% of the staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

[F. No. 11016/2/2017-OL(Noti.)]

RAJIV KUMAR, Assistant Director (OL)

List of Offices to be notified under Rule 10(4) of Official Language Rule 1976

1. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural

6. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development

Development

Punnen Road, Statue Thiruvananthapuram- 695001 Kerala

'U PhetKharmihpen Building' 2nd and 3rd floor, Plot No.28(2), Dhankheti Shillong- 793003 Meghalaya

7. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural

Development

2. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural

Development

G.S.Road, Dispur Guwahati – 781006 Assam

Shilpa Nigam Bhaban, Ground Floor, Khejur Bagan Near Ginger Hotel P.O. Kungaben Agartala- 799006 Tripura

3. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural

Development

8. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural

Development

NSCB Head Office Administration Building 4th floor, Circular Road, Khermahal, Dimapur – 797112 Nagaland

Ramhlun Road (North) Bawngkawn Aizawl- 796014 Mizoram

4. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural

Development

9. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural

Development

Om Niwas, Church Road Gangtok- 737101 Sikkim

1-1-61, RTC 'X' Road Musheerabad, Hyderabad – 500 020 Telangana

5. Bankers' Institute of Rural Development Bolpur Lodge P.O.Bolpur District Birbhum- 731204 Bolpur

10. National Insurance Company limited, Delhi Regional Office 4, Konnectus Building, 8th Floor, 803 B , Tower C, Bhavbhuti Marg, Opposite New Delhi Railway Station.

नई दिल्ली, 5 अक्तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 1050.—कें द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976

(1987 में यथा संशोधित) के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) के अनुसरण में भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के सूचीबद्ध

कार्यालयों/शाखाओं को अधिसूचित करती है, जिनके 80% से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त

कर लिया है : -

[फा. सं. 11016/2/2017-हिं.(अधि.)]

राजीव कु मार, सहायक निदेशक (राजभाषा)

राजभाषा नियम 1976 के नियम 10(4) के अंतर्गत अधिसूचित किए जाने वाले कार्यालयों/शाखाओं की सूची

1. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक,

प्रशासनिक कार्यालय 3

द्वितीय तल, प्रशासनिक कार्यालय,

अहिंसा भवन, नई दिल्ली-110060

2. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

क्षेत्रीय व्यवसाय कार्यालय 4,

ए-ब्लॉक, तृतीय तल,

संसद मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110001

3. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

क्षेत्रीय व्यवसाय कार्यालय 3

पीतम पुरा, नई दिल्ली-110034

4. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक,

क्षेत्रीय व्यवसाय कार्यालय 2,

तृतीय तल, प्रशासनिक कार्यालय,

अहिंसा भवन, नई दिल्ली-110060

5. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक,

क्षेत्रीय व्यवसाय कार्यालय 1

द्वितीय तल, 23,

नजफ़गढ़ रोड -110015

6. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

सोनीपत शाखा

पी. बैग 33 सोनीपत गुर, मंडी जिला-

रोहतक,

सोनीपत, हरियाणा -131001

7. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

राम कृ ष्ण पुरम शाखा,

सेक्टर 1, ब्लॉक 7,आर के पुरम,

नई दिल्ली-110022

8. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक,

खांझावाला शाखा

खांझावाला गाँव,

नई दिल्ली -110081

9. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक,

जीटी रोड बहालगढ़ शाखा सोनीपत, हरियाणा-131021

10. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

सुब्रतो पार्क शाखा एयर फोर्स,

डब्लूएसी सुब्रतो पार्क ,

दिल्ली कैं ट, नई दिल्ली-110010

11. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

शकू र बस्ती शाखा 1067, रानीबाग मार्के ट,

नई दिल्ली-110034[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 2979 12. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

20. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

पंजाबी बाग शाखा

एडीबी सोनीपत शाखा

2/85, क्लब रोड, पंजाबी बाग,

रेल्वे रोड, सोनीपत,

नई दिल्ली-110026

हरियाणा-131001

13. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

21. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

आजादपुर शाखा

पीबीबी पीतमपुरा शाखा न्यू सब्जी मंडी, आजादपुर,

पीबीबी वैशाली, पीतमपुरा,

नई दिल्ली-110033

नई दिल्ली-110034

14. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

22. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

बादली शाखा

गन्नौर मंडी शाखा

रिठाला रोड बादली,

छोटी मंडी गौशाला,

नई दिल्ली-110042

सोनीपत, हरियाणा-131101

15. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

23. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

हलालपुर शाखा

हलालपुर, सोनीपत,

एच-4, वधर्मान नॉर्थ एक्स प्लाज़ा,

हरियाणा-131103

प्रथम तल, नई दिल्ली-110034

16. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

24. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

भातगाँव शाखा

रोहिणी, नई दिल्ली सेक्टर-9 शाखा भटगाँव, सोनीपत,

दीपल प्लाज़ा बिल्डिंग,

हरियाणा -131022

डी.सी.चौक दिल्ली-110085

17. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

25. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

हरि नगर शाखा

एटलस साइकिल सोनीपत शाखा सी-47, हरिनगर,

146 आर, मॉडल टाऊन,

क्लॉक टावर,

सोनीपत, हरियाणा-131001

नई दिल्ली-110064

26. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

शकू रपुर (दिल्ली) शाखा 18. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक सुभाष नगर शाखा

डी ब्लॉक, शकु रपुर, दिल्ली -110034 सुभाष नगर, डी-1,

अजय एन्क्लेव सुभाष,

27. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

नई दिल्ली -110027

चौखंडी (नई दिल्ली) शाखा

चौखंडी,

19. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

नई दिल्ली -110018

एसएमई शाखा नारायणा

28. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

59 कम्यूनिटी सेंटर,

ख्याला शाखा

नारायणा इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया,

ख्याला दिल्ली -110018

नई दिल्ली-1100282980 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 29. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

जहाँगीरपूरी शाखा

ए-ब्लॉक, जहाँगीरपूरी,

दिल्ली -110033

भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

30.

मंगोलपूरी शाखा

लोकल शॉपिंग सेंटर,

ओ -ब्लॉक, मंगोलपुरी,

नई दिल्ली-110083

31. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक सुल्तानपूरी शाखा

बी ब्लॉक, सुल्तानपुरी,

नई दिल्ली-110086

32. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

रघुवीर नगर शाखा

रघुवीर नगर, नई दिल्ली -110027

33. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

सीओडी शकू रबस्ती शाखा

ऑर्डिनेंस डिपोट,

शकु रबस्ती, दिल्ली -110056

34. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

एसएमई शाखा वज़ीरपुर आई ई

बी-76, वज़ीरपुर इंडस्ट्रीयल क्षेत्र,

नई दिल्ली-110052

35. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

जीटी करनाल रोड इंडस्ट्रीयल कॉम्प्लेक्स

शाखा कोड

जीआई -23,जीटी करनाल रोड

इंडस्ट्रीयल कॉम्प्लेक्स, नई दिल्ली-

110033

36. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

इंद्रलोक शाखा

313/10 बी इंद्रलोक,

नई दिल्ली-110035

37. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

ज्वालापुरी शाखा

जे जे कॉलोनी, ए-ब्लॉक,

कैं प नं. 4, नई दिल्ली-110087

38. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

ज्वालहरी शाखा

पश्चिम विहार, नई दिल्ली-110063

39. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

समिपुर शाखा

मंदिर मोहल्ला मेन रोड,

समयपुर, नई दिल्ली-110042

40. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

नरेला शाखा

बवाना रोड, नरेला दिल्ली,

दिल्ली-110040

41. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

के शवपुरम शाखा

सी 7, सेंटरल मार्के ट,

प्रथम तल,

के शव पुरम,

दिल्ली -110035

भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

42.

मु ंडका शाखा

गाँव एवं पोस्ट- मु ंडका,

नई दिल्ली-110041

43. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

तिरकी कलान शाखा

टिकरी कलान,

नई दिल्ली-110041

44. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

पल्ला शाखा

गाँव एवं पोस्ट -पल्ला ,

दिल्ली -110036[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 2981 45. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक खेरा खुर्द शाखा

गाँव एवं पोस्ट -खेरा खुर्द,

नई दिल्ली-110082

46. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

मोतीलाल नेहरू स्पोट्र्स स्कू ल राय शाखा

मोतीलाल नेहरू स्पोट्र्स,

स्कू ल गाँव -राय, सोनीपत,

हरियाणा-131029

47. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

खरखोदा शाखा

सोनीपत रोड,

खरखोदा बस स्टैंड के पास,

सोनीपत, हरियाणा-131402

48. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

पूठ खुर्द शाखा

गाँव - पूठ खुर्द,

नई दिल्ली -110039

49. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

लठ शाखा

गाँव एवं पोस्ट-लठ लेह-गोहाना,

जिला - सोनीपत,

हरियाणा-131001

50. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

लरसौली शाखा

जिला - सोनीपत,

हरियाणा-131039

51. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

श्रीनगर कॉलोनी शाखा

बी 1/10, अशोक विहार,

फे ज-I, नई दिल्ली-110052

52. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

रीठाला शाखा

गाँव एवं पोस्ट- रीठाला,

नई दिल्ली-110085

53. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

बवाना (दिल्ली) शाखा

नरेला रोड,

नई दिल्ली-110039

भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

54.

मजलिस पार्क शाखा

ए-11, मजलिस पार्क ,

दिल्ली-110033

भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

55.

माजरा दबास शाखा

माजरा दबास (दिल्ली),

नई दिल्ली-110081

56. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

रथदाना रोड (लहरारा) शाखा

रथदाना रोड लहरारा,

सोनीपत, हरियाणा-131001

57. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

चिताना शाखा

गाँव-चिताना,

पोस्ट- महरा सोनीपत,

हरियाणा-131024

58. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक सावन पार्क शाखा,

के -4, सावन पार्क ,

दिल्ली -110052

59. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक विकासपुरी शाखा

जी-3, , विकासपुरी,

नई दिल्ली-110018

भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

60.

पश्चिम विहार शाखा

डीडीए शॉपिंग सेंटर, ए-1,

पश्चिम विहार,

नई दिल्ली -1100632982 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 61. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

69. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

मीरा बाग शाखा

पीतमपुरा नागलोई शाखा

ए 336, आउटर रिंग रोड,

530/2 , नागलोई चौक,

मीरा बाग, नई दिल्ली-110087

नजफ़गढ़ रोड, नांगोलोई,

नई दिल्ली-110041

62. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

के सोपुर शाखा

भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

70.

ए-5, डब्लूज़ेड -2/1ए,

रोहिणी सेक्टर-12 शाखा

साहिबपुरा, नई दिल्ली-110018

हाउस सं-69-70, पॉके ट नं-एफ-22 ,

जी एफ, सेक्टर- रोहिणी,

63. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

नई दिल्ली-110085

जिला कोर्ट, रोहिणी शाखा

जिला कोर्ट, रोहिणी,

भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

71.

अन्तरिक्ष अपाटर्मेंट के पास,

रोहिणी सेक्टर-11शाखा

नई दिल्ली -110085

पासकान बिल्डिंग गर्ग ट्रेड सेंटर,

सेक्टर-11, रोहिणी,

64. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

नई दिल्ली-110085

दिल्ली कॉलेज ऑफ इंजीनियरिंग शाखा

बवाना रोड,

72. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

नई दिल्ली-110042

रोहिणी सेक्टर-24 शाखा

सीएस /ओसीएफ नं. 7

भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

65.

(बेस्ट मेगा मॉल),

शालिमार बाग शाखा

प्रथम तल, सेक्टर 24, रोहिणी,

बी टी-35 , शालिमार बाग,

नई दिल्ली-110085

नई दिल्ली-110088

भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

73.

भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

66.

टैगोर गार्डेन शाखा,

शास्त्री नगर शाखा

बी-20-21, शॉपिंग सेंटर,

ई 2/ 234-235, शास्त्री नगर,

टैगोर सेंटर, टैगोर गार्डेन,

नई दिल्ली-110052

नई दिल्ली-110027

67. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

अशोक विहार शाखा

74. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

जीत बिल्डिंग, 11 सेंट्रल मार्के ट,

उत्तरी पीतमपुरा दिल्ली शाखा

एफयू -1, उत्तरी पीतमपुरा,

अशोक विहार फे स-1,

दिल्ली-110088

नई दिल्ली-110052

75. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

68. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

गोहाना शाखा

कोहट एन्क्लेव पीतमपुरा शाखा

दुकान सं-84, नई अनाजमंडी,

369 कोहाट एंक्लव, ग्राउं ड फ्लोर,

सोनीपत, हरियाणा-124301

पीतमपुरा, नई दिल्ली-110034[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 2983 76. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

डीबीआरसी यूनिवर्सिटी ऑफ साइंस एंड

84. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक स्काब नोथ शाखा

टेक्नोलोजी मुर्थल शाखा

मुर्थल, सोनीपत,

हरियाणा-131039

77. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

प्लॉट नं.89, ब्लॉक बी,

वजीरपुर इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया,

दिल्ली-110052

भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

85.

एसएमई सीसीसी जीटी करनाल रोड शाखा

बी-248, प्रथम तल,

डेरवाल नगर,

नई दिल्ली-110009

78. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

राय इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया शाखा

टीपी1, सेक्टर-38,

एचएसआईआईडीसी के पास,

सोनीपत, हरियाणा-131029

86. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

आरएसीपीसी नेताजी सुभाष पैलेस शाखा

पर्ल बेस्ट हाइट आई पीतमपुरा,

दिल्ली-110034

79. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

गणेश नगर शाखा

1/20, तिलक नगर लाल बत्ती के पास,

नई दिल्ली-110019

87. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

एसएमई सीसीसी शाखा

नरायणा इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया,

नई दिल्ली-110028

80. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

मियाँवालि नगर शाखा

9 पश्चिम एनक्लेव,

नई दिल्ली, 110087

88. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

रोहिणी सेक्टर 18 शाखा

रोहिणी पॉके ट एच-3,

नई दिल्ली-110085

81. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

वेस्ट एवेन्यू पंजाबी बाग शाखा

2/52, पंजाबी बाग वेस्ट एवेन्यू,

नई दिल्ली-110026

89. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

गुरु हरकिशन नगर शाखा

एम-125, गुरु हरकृ ष्ण नगर,

नई दिल्ली-110041

82. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

पुष्पांजलि एन्क्लेव शाखा

बी-96, पुष्पांजलि एन्क्लेव,

नई दिल्ली -110034

90. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

जेल रोड हरिनगर शाखा

एएल -6, एल ब्लॉक,

नई दिल्ली-110064

भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

83.

जे ब्लॉक राजौरी गार्डेन शाखा

जे9/34 राजौरी गार्डेन,

नई दिल्ली-110027

91. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

हस्तसाल विकासपुरी शाखा

ए-8, विकासपुरी,

नई दिल्ली-110018

माया एन्क्लेव मायापुरी शाखा

डी-2/डी-3, मायापुरी फे ज-II,

लाल बत्ती के सामने,2984 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] माया एनक्लेव,

100. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

शंकर विहार शाखा नई दिल्ली-110064

आईएचकिउ मोड(आर्मी) सीए,

राव तुला राम मार्ग,

92. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

नाहरी जिला सोनीपत शाखा

नई दिल्ली-110010

गाँव एवं पोस्ट-नाहरी सोनीपत,

हरियाणा-131003

101. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

सेक्टर 8 दीपाली चौक रोहिणी शाखा

93. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

प्लॉट नं. 9, पॉके ट ए1,

सेक्टर-14 सोनीपत शाखा

सेक्टर 8 (दीपाली चौक के पास) रोहिणी, प्लॉट सं 1, 2, टी.पी. स्कीम सोनीपत,

नई दिल्ली-110085

हरियाणा-131001

102. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

94. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

सबीआई इन टच

मिनी सेक्रिटेरियट सोनीपत शाखा

गुरु गोबिन्द सिंह मार्ग शाखा

नई डी.सी. बिल्डिंग, गोहाना रोड,

बीएच 7 शालीमार बाग पूर्व,

सोनीपत, हरियाणा-131001

दिल्ली-110088

95. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

राजपूताना राइफल्स शाखा

103. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक एसबीआई इन टच

भारत सरकार, एम/ओ डिफें स,

शिवाजी एन्क्लेव शाखा

जीएन -3, शिवाजी एनक्लेव,

राजपूतना राइफल, नई दिल्ली-110010

नई दिल्ली-110027

96. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

सैदपुर शाखा

104. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

गाँव एवं पोस्ट -सैदपुर,

एएल ब्लॉक, डीडीए शॉपिंग कॉम्प्लेक्स, सोनीपत, हरियाणा-131402

शालीमार बाग, दिल्ली -110052

97. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

मोहाना जिला सोनीपत शाखा

105. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

गाँव एवं पोस्ट: मोहना,

रोहिणी नई दिल्ली शाखा

ब्लॉक नं. ई -2/25, ग्राउं ड फ्लोर, सोनीपत, हरियाणा-131001

सेक्टर-7, नई दिल्ली-110085

98. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

अलिपुर शाखा 240, नेहरू एनक्लेव,

भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

106.

एमएसएमई शाखा नई दिल्ली-110036

प्रथम तल, अग्रवाल चेतन प्लाज़ा,

प्लॉट सं-1, 2,

99. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

राजधानी एन्क्लेव पीतमपुरा शाखा

लोकल शॉपिंग सेंटर,

प्लॉट नं. 2, रोड 44,

पॉके ट, सेक्टर ए 9, नरेला,

पीतमपुरा, नई दिल्ली-110034

दिल्ली -110040[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 2985 भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

107.

बीएन ब्लॉक, शालिमार बाग,

टिकरी खुर्द शाखा

दिल्ली-110088

भारतीय स्टेट बैंक,

जाटों वाली गली,

115. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

रेशन कोटा कार्यालय के पास,

जीएमवी कॉलेज शाखा

टिकरी खुर्द, नई दिल्ली -110040

मुर्थल रोड, जी वी एम गल्र्स कॉलेज,

सोनीपत, हरियाणा-131001

108. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

विशाल एनक्लेव शाखा

116. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

ए-30 , विशाल एनक्लेव,

नैशनल मार्के ट शाखा पश्चिम एन्क्लेव शाखा

नई दिल्ली-110027

प्लॉट सं. 2 एवं 3,

लोकल शॉपिंग कॉम्प्लेक्स,

109. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

ब्लॉक एफ, प्रथम तल,

सेक्टर-14, रोहिणी शाखा

नेशनक मार्के ट के सामने,

सेक्टर 14 एक्सटेंशन,

पश्चिम एन्क्लेव-110087

नई दिल्ली-110085

117. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

गोहाना शाखा

110. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

एनआईई फे ज़-I शाखा

वडोदरा रोड, जिला-सोनीपत,

प्रथम तल,

हरियाणा-131301

नरायणा इंडस्ट्रियल इस्टेट फे ज 1,

जिला- नई दिल्ली (110028)

118. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

जी.टी.रोड मूरथल शाखा

जी.टी. रोड, जिला- सोनीपत ,

111. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

हरियाणा -131027

एमसीबी लारेंस रोड शाखा

5 कम्यूनिटी सेंटर, लारेंस रोड,

जिला -दिल्ली -110035

119. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

मोडेल टाउन सोनीपत शाखा

पुराने कोर्ट के पास, रोहतक रोड, 112. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

सोनीपत, हरियाणा-131001

रेलवे रोड सोनीपत शाखा

रेलवे रोड, सोनीपत,

हरियाणा-131001

120. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

एसएमई कु ं डली शाखा

जंति रोड, कु ं डली, सोनीपत,

113. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

हरियाणा-131028

सेक्टर-5 रोहिणी शाखा

रोहिणी, दिल्ली -110085

121. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

पूथ कलान शाखा

114. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

ब्लॉक कं जाहवाला पूथ कलान,

डीएवी स्कू ल कैं पस शाखा

नई दिल्ली-110041

दरबारी लाल, डीएवी स्कू ल,2986 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 122. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

डीडीए मार्के ट, प्रथम तल,

कराला शाखा

रोहिणी, दिल्ली -110034

कराला, नई दिल्ली -110081

भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

131.

गन्नौर शाखा

123. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक रमा मार्के ट शाखा

छोटीमंडी, रेलवे. आरडी.

पीतमपुरा नई दिल्ली -110034

गन्नौर, सोनीपत,

हरियाणा-131101

124. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक बदमालिक शाखा

भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

132.

पोस्ट-पी एस राय,

आरएसीपीसी, नारायणा इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया सोनीपत, हरियाणा-131029

शाखा

दिल्ली 59, कम्यूनिटी सेंटर,

125. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

नारायणा इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया,

जगसी शाखा

नई दिल्ली-110028

अगसी, तहसील-गोहाना,

जिला- सोनीपत, हरियाणा -124319

भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

133.

दिल्ली नरेला शाखा

126. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

डी160डी160, प्रथम तल,

जोनती ब्लॉक नई दिल्ली शाखा

एफसी -IV,

गाँव -जाऊन्ती,

डीएसआईआईडीसी, इंडस्ट्रियल कॉम्प्लेक्स, नई दिल्ली-110081

नरेला, दिल्ली -110001

127. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

गढ़वाल शाखा

गाँव एवं पोस्ट- गढ़वाल,

134. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

गोहाना(एएम) शाखा

जिला- सोनीपत,

अनाज मंडी, गोहाना,

हरियाणा-131030

सोनीपत, हरियाणा-136128

128. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

135. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

सोनीपत मिनि सेक्टर शाखा

नई दिल्ली (अशोक विहार) शाखा मिनि सेक्रे टरियट,

शक्ति नगर एक्सटेंशन,

सोनीपत, हरियाणा-131001

अशोक विहार, फे ज 3,

नई दिल्ली (अशोक विहार),

129. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

दिल्ली -110052

वाई.एस. मॉडेल स्कू ल शाखा

फे ज - I, बुध विहार,

नई दिल्ली-110086

136. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

नई दिल्ली (विकासपुरी) हास्टसल एरिया

शाखा

130. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

विकासपूरी (हास्टसल एरिया),

रोहिणी नई दिल्ली शाखा

नई दिल्ली -110018

सीएससी -II, सेक्टर-13,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 2987 भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

137.

140. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

सरगाथाल शाखा

आ.सं. 577,

28/12, ईस्ट पंजाबी बाग,

पीडब्लूडी रोड,

नई दिल्ली-110026

गाँव एवं पोस्ट-सरगथल ,

जिला-सोनीपत,

141. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

हरियाणा -131305

पी.बी. नं. 10005,

बालाजी प्लाज़ा,

भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

138.

गोहाना मिनि सेक्टर शाखा

सेक्टर-8, रोहिणी, दिल्ली-110085

नई बिल्डिंग,

सोनीपत रोड,

142. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

वजीरपुर शाखा

गोहाना, हरियाणा-131301

आर.जी. सिटी सेंटर,

बी-ब्लॉक एलएससी,

भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

139.

नांगलोई जाट शाखा

लॉरेंस रोड, दिल्ली-110035

के -61, अध्यापक नगर,

मुख्य नजफ़गढ़ रोड,

143. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

नारायण धर्मकांटा नांगलोई के पास,

प्लॉट नं. 182, अवतार एनक्लेव, नई दिल्ली-110041

पश्चिम विहार, नई दिल्ली-110063

New Delhi, the 5th October, 2020

S.O. 1050.— In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government, hereby notifies the listed Offices/ Branches of State Bank of India, more than 80% of the staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

[F. No. 11016/2/2017-OL(Noti.)]

RAJIV KUMAR, Assistant Director (OL)

LIST OF OFFICES/ BRANCHES TO BE NOTIFIED UNDER RULE 10(4) OF

OFFICIAL LANGUAGE RULES 1976

1. STATE BANK OF INDIA

3. STATE BANK OF INDIA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 3 2ND FLOOR ADMIN OFFICE AHINSA BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 110060

4. STATE BANK OF INDIA

REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE 2 3RD FLOOR ADMIN OFFICE AHINSA BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 110060

2. STATE BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE 4 A-BLOCK, 3 RD FLOOR PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI 1100012988 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 5. STATE BANK OF INDIA

16. STATE BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE 1 2ND FLOOR,23, NAJAFGARH ROAD-110015

BHATGAON BRANCH BHATGAON,SONIPAT, HARYANA-131022

6. STATE BANK OF INDIA

17. STATE BANK OF INDIA SONIPAT BRANCH P. BAG 33 SONEPAT GUR MANDI DIST:ROHTAK, SONIPAT, HARYANA-131001

HARINAGAR BRANCH C-47, HARINAGAR, CLOCK TOWER, NEW DELHI-10064

7. STATE BANK OF INDIA

18. STATE BANK OF INDIA

SUBHASH NAGAR BRANCH SUBHASH NAGAR, D-1, AJAY ENCLAVE SUBHASH, NEW DELHI-110027

RAM KRISHNA PURAM NEW DELHI BRANCH SECTOR 1, BLOCK 7, RK PURAM, NEW DELHI-110022

19. STATE BANK OF INDIA

8. STATE BANK OF INDIA

SME BRANCH NARAINA IND. AREA 59 COMMUNITY CENTRE, NARAINA INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEW DELHI-110028

KHANJAWALA BRANCH KANJHAWALA VILLAGE, NEW DELHI-110081

20. STATE BANK OF INDIA 9. STATE BANK OF INDIA

G.T. ROAD BAHALGARH BRANCH SONIPAT, HARYANA-131021

ADB, SONEPAT BRANCH RAILWAY ROAD, SONEPAT, HARYANA-131001

10. STATE BANK OF INDIA

21. STATE BANK OF INDIA

P B B PITAMPURA BRANCH P B B VAISHALI PITAMPURA NEW DELHI-110034

SUBROTO PARK BRANCH AIRFORCE WACSUBROTO PARK , DELHI CANTT, NEW DELHI-110010

22. STATE BANK OF INDIA 11. STATE BANK OF INDIA

GANNAUR MANDI BRANCH CHOTI MANDI GAUSHALA, SONIPAT HARYANA-131101

SHAKUR BASTI BRANCH 1067, RANIBAGH MARKET, NEW DELHI-110034

23. STATE BANK OF INDIA 12. STATE BANK OF INDIA

PUNJABI BAGH BRANCH 2/85, CLUB ROAD, PANJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI-110026

SME BRANCH, NETAJI SUBHASH PALACE BRANCH H-4,VARDHMAN NORTH EX PLAZA, 1ST FLOOR, NEW DELHI-110034

24. STATE BANK OF INDIA 13. STATE BANK OF INDIA AZADPUR BRANCH NEW SUBJI MANDI AZADPUR, NEW DELHI-110033

ROHINI DELHI SECTOR-9 BRANCH DEEPAL PLAZA BUILDING, D.C.CHOWK DELHI-110085

14. STATE BANK OF INDIA

25. STATE BANK OF INDIA BADLI BRANCH RITHALA ROAD BADLI, NEW DELHI-110042

ATLAS CYCLE INDUSTRIES SONEPAT BRANCH 146 R, MODEL TOWN, SONEPAT, HARYANA-131001

26. STATE BANK OF INDIA 15. STATE BANK OF INDIA HALALPUR BRANCH HALALPUR, SONIPAT, HARYANA-131103

SHAKURPUR (DELHI) BRANCH D BLOCK, SHAKURPUR, DELHI-110034[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 2989 27. STATE BANK OF INDIA

39. STATE BANK OF INDIA

CHAUKHANDI (NEW DELHI) BRANCH CHAUKHANDI, NEW DELHI-110018

28. STATE BANK OF INDIA SAMEPUR BRANCH MANDIR MOHALLA MAIN ROAD, SAMEPUR DELHI, NEW DELHI-110042

40 STATE BANK OF INDIA

KHYALA BRANCH KHYALA DELHI-110018

29. STATE BANK OF INDIA NARELA BRANCH BAWANA ROAD, NARELA DELHI, DELHI-110040

41. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JAHANGIRPURI BRANCH A- BLOCK, JAHANGIRPURI, DELHI-110033

30. STATE BANK OF INDIA KESHAVPURAM BRANCH C 7, CENTRAL MARKET FIRST FLOOR KESHAV PURAM, DELHI-110035

MANGOLPURI BRANCH LOCAL SHOPPING CENTRE, O-BLOCK, MANGOLPURI, NEW DELHI-110083

42. STATE BANK OF INDIA MUNDKA BRANCH VILLAGE AND PO MUNDKA, NEW DELHI-110041

31. STATE BANK OF INDIA

43. STATE BANK OF INDIA

SULTANPURI BRANCH B BLOCK, SULTANPURI, NEW DELHI-10086

32. STATE BANK OF INDIA TIKRI KALAN BRANCH TIKRI KALAN,NEW DELHI-110041

44. STATE BANK OF INDIA

RAGHUBIR NAGAR BRANCH NEW DELHI-110027

33. STATE BANK OF INDIA PALLA BRANCH DELHI VILLAGE AND P.O.PALLA, DELHI-110036

45. STATE BANK OF INDIA

C.O.D.SHAKUR BASTI BRANCH ORDINANCE DEPOT, SHAKURBASTI, DELHI-110056

34. STATE BANK OF INDIA KHERA KHURD BRANCH VILL AND PO KHERA KHURD, NEW DELHI-110082

46. STATE BANK OF INDIA

SME BRANCH, WAZIRPUR IND ESTATE, B-76, WAZIRPUR IND. AREA, NEW DELHI-110052

35. STATE BANK OF INDIA MSNL OF SPORTS RAI BRANCH MOTILAL NEHRU SPORTS, SCHOOL VILLAGE RAI, SONEPAT, HARYANA-131029

47. STATE BANK OF INDIA

G.T.KARNAL ROAD IND. COMPLEX BRANCH GI-23, G.T.KARNAL ROAD, INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, NEW DELHI-110033

KHARKHODA BRANCH SONIPAT ROAD NEAR BUS STAND KHARKHODA, SONEPAT, HARYANA-131402

48. STATE BANK OF INDIA

36. STATE BANK OF INDIA INDERLOK BRANCH 313/10B INDERLOK, DELHI, NEW DELHI-110035

37. STATE BANK OF INDIA POOTH KHURD BRANCH POOTH KHURD VILLAGE, NEW DELHI-110039

49. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JAWALAPURI BRANCH JJ COLONY, A-BLOCK, CAMP NO. 4, NEW DELHI-110087

38. STATE BANK OF INDIA JAWALA HERI VILLAGE BRANCH PASCHIM VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110063

LATH BRANCH V.P.O. LATH TEH-GOHANA, DISTT-SONEPAT, HARYANA-131001

50. STATE BANK OF INDIA LARSOULI BRANCH DISTT-SONEPAT, HARYANA-1310392990 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 51. STATE BANK OF INDIA

DISTRICT COURT ROHINI, NEAR ANTARIKSH APAR, NEW DELHI-110085

SRI NAGAR COLONY BRANCH B 1/10, ASHOK VIHAR, PHASE I, NEW DELHI-110052

64. STATE BANK OF INDIA

DELHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING BRANCH BAWANA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110042

52. STATE BANK OF INDIA RITHALA BRANCH VILLAGE AND POST RITHALA, NEW DELHI-110085

65. STATE BANK OF INDIA 53. STATE BANK OF INDIA

BAWANA(DELHI) BRANCH NARELA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110039

SHALIMAR BAGH BRANCH BT-35, SHALIMAR BAGH, NEW DELHI-110088

54. STATE BANK OF INDIA

66. STATE BANK OF INDIA MAJLIS PARK BRANCH A-11, MAJLIS PARK, DELHI-110033

SHASTRI NAGAR BRANCH E 2/234-235, SHASTRI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110052

55. STATE BANK OF INDIA

67. STATE BANK OF INDIA MAJRA DABAS BRANCH MAJRA DABAS (DELHI), NEW DELHI-110081

ASHOK VIHAR BRANCH JEET BUILDING, 11 CENTRAL MARKET, ASHOK VIHAR PHASE-I, NEW DELHI-110052

56. STATE BANK OF INDIA

68. STATE BANK OF INDIA RATHDANA ROAD BRANCH RATHDANA ROAD LAHRARA, SONEPAT, HARYANA-131001

KOHAT ENCLAVE PITAMPURA BRANCH 369 KOHAT ENCLAVE, GR FLOOR, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI-110034

69. STATE BANK OF INDIA 57. STATE BANK OF INDIA CHITANA BRANCH VILL-CHITANA, PO MAHRA, SONEPAT, HARYANA-131024

58. STATE BANK OF INDIA

NANGLOI BRANCH 530/3 NANGLOI CHOWK, NAJAFGARH ROAD, NANGLOI, NEW DELHI-110041

70. STATE BANK OF INDIA SAWAN PARK BRANCH K-4, SAWAN PARK, DELHI-110052

59. STATE BANK OF INDIA

ROHINI SEC-12 BRANCH HOUSE NO 69-70, POCKET NO, F-22 G F, SEC- ROHINI, NEW DELHI-110085

VIKASPURI BRANCH G-3, VIKASPURI, NEW DELHI-110018

71. STATE BANK OF INDIA 60. STATE BANK OF INDIA

PASCHIM VIHAR BRANCH DDA SHOPPING CENTRE, A-1, PASCHIMVIHAR, NEW DELHI-110063

ROHINI SECTOR-11 BRANCH PASCON BHILDING GARG TRADE CENTRE, SECTOR-11, ROHINI, NEW DELHI-110085

61. STATE BANK OF INDIA

72. STATE BANK OF INDIA MEERA BAGH BRANCH A 336, OUTER RING ROAD, MEERA BAGH, NEW DELHI-110087

62. STATE BANK OF INDIA

ROHINI SEC 24 BRANCH CS/OCF NO.7 (BEST MEGA MALL) 1ST FLOOR SEC 24 ROHINI, NEW DELHI-110085 73. STATE BANK OF INDIA KESHOPUR BRANCH A-5, WZ-2/1A, SAHIBPURA, NEW DELHI-110018

63. STATE BANK OF INDIA

TAGORE GARDENBRANCH B-20-21, SHOPPING CENTRE, TAGORE CENTRE, TAGORE GARDEN, NEW DELHI-110027

DISTRICT COURT ROHINI BRANCH[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 2991 PLOT NO 89 BLOCK B, WAZIRPUR INDUSTRIAL AREA, DELHI-110052

85. STATE BANK OF INDIA 74. STATE BANK OF INDIA UTTARI PITAMPURA DELHI BRANCH STATE BANK OF INDIA, FU-1, UTTARI PITAMPURA DELHI, DELHI-110088

RAI INDUSTRIAL AREA BRANCH TP1, SECTOR-38, NEAR HSIIDC, SONEPAT, HARYANA-131029

75. STATE BANK OF INDIA

86. STATE BANK OF INDIA GOHANA BRANCH SHOP NO.84, NEW ANAJMANDI SONEPAT, HARYANA-124301

GANESH NAGAR BRANCH 1/20, NEAR TILAK NAGAR RED LIGHT, NEW DELHI-110019

76. STATE BANK OF INDIA

87. STATE BANK OF INDIA D.C.R.U.S.T. MURTHALBRANCH MURTHAL, SONIPAT, HARYANA-131039

MIANWALI NAGAR BRANCH 9 PASCHIM ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI-110087

77. STATE BANK OF INDIA

88. STATE BANK OF INDIA SMECCC GT KARNAL ROAD BRANCH B-248, 1ST FLOOR DERAWAL NAGAR. NEW DELHI-110009

WEST AVENUE PANJABI BAGH BRANCH 2/52, PANJABI BAGH, WEST AVENUE, NEW DELHI-110026

78. STATE BANK OF INDIA

89. STATE BANK OF INDIA

PUSHPANJALI ENCLAVE BRANCH B-96, PUSHPANJALI ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI-110034

90. STATE BANK OF INDIA RACPC NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE BRANCH RACPC NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE, PEARL BEST HEIGHT I PITAMPURA, DELHI-110034

79. STATE BANK OF INDIA

J-BLOCK RAJOURI GARDEN BRANCH J 9/34 RAJOURI GARDEN, NEW DELHI-110027

SMECCC NARAINA BRANCH NARAINA INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEW DELHI-110028

91. STATE BANK OF INDIA

80. STATE BANK OF INDIA

SECTOR-18 ROHINI BRANCH ROHINI POCKET H-3, NEW DELHI-110085

MAYA ENCLAVE MAYAPURI BRANCH D-2/D-3, MAYAPURI PHASE-II, OPPOSITE RED LIGHT, MAYA ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI-110064

81. STATE BANK OF INDIA

92. STATE BANK OF INDIA GURU HARKRISHAN NAGAR BRANCH M-125 GURU HARKRISHAN NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110041

NAHRI SONEPAT BRANCH VILLAGE & POST-NAHRI SONEPAT HARYANA-131003

82. STATE BANK OF INDIA

93. STATE BANK OF INDIA JAIL ROAD HARI NAGAR BRANCH AL-6, L BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110064

SECTOR 14, SONEPAT BRANCH PLOT NO 1,2 T.P. SCHEME SONEPAT HARYANA-131001

83. STATE BANK OF INDIA

94. STATE BANK OF INDIA HASTSAL VIKAS PURI BRANCH A-8 VIKAS PURI, NEW DELHI-110018

84. STATE BANK OF INDIA

MINI SECRETARIATE SONEPAT BRANCH NEW D.C. BUILDING, GOHANA ROAD, SONEPAT HARYANA-131001 SCAB NORTH BRANCH2992 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] GROUND FLOOR, SECTOR-7, NEW DELHI-110085

95. STATE BANK OF INDIA RAJPUTANA RIFLES BRANCH GOVT OF INDIA M/O DFENCE, RAJPUTANARIF, NEW DELHI-110010 106. STATE BANK OF INDIA

96. STATE BANK OF INDIA

SAIDPUR BRANCH VILLAGE AND POST SAIDPUR, SONEPAT, HARYANA-131402

97. STATE BANK OF INDIA

MSME BRANCH 1st FLOOR, AGGARWALCHETAN PLAZA , PLOT NO 1, 2, LOCAL SHOPING CENTRE, POCKET 2, SECTOR A9, NARELA, DELHI-110040

107. STATE BANK OF INDIA MOHANA (DISTT-SONEPAT) BRANCH VILL & POST:MOHANA, SONEPAT HARYANA-131001

98. STATE BANK OF INDIA

TIKRI KHURD BRANCH JATON WALI GALI, NEAR RATION QUOTA OFFICE, TIKRI KHURD, NEW DELHI-110040

ALIPUR DELHI BRANCH 240 NEHRU ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI-110036

108. STATE BANK OF INDIA

99. STATE BANK OF INDIA

VISHAL ENCLAVE BRANCH A-30, VISHAL ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI-110027

109. STATE BANK OF INDIA RAJDHANI ENCLAVE PITAMPURA BRANCH PLOT NO. 2, ROAD 44, PITAMPURA. NEW DELHI-110034

SECTOR-14 ROHINI NEW DELHI SECTOR 14 EXTN, NEW DELHI-110085

100. STATE BANK OF INDIA

110. STATE BANK OF INDIA SHANKAR VIHAR BRANCH IHQ MOD(ARMY) CA, RAO TULA RAM MARG, NEW DELHI-110010

NIE PHASE -1 BRANCH 1ST FLOOR, NARAINA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE PHASE 1, DISTT NEW DELHI-110028 101. STATE BANK OF INDIA

111. STATE BANK OF INDIA SECTOR 8 DEEPALI CHOWK BRANCH PLOT NO 9, POCKET-A1, SECTOR 8 (NEAR DEEPALI CHOWK) ROHINI NEW DELHI-110085

MCB LAWRENCE ROAD BRANCH COMMUNITY CENTRE, LAWRENCE ROAD DISTT. DELHI-110035

102. STATE BANK OF INDIA

112. STATE BANK OF INDIA

RAILWAY ROAD SONEPAT BRANCH RAILWAY ROAD, SONEPAT, HARYANA-131001 SBI INTOUCH GURU GOBIND SINGH MARG BRANCH BH 7 SHALIMAR BAGH EAST, DELHI-110088

113. STATE BANK OF INDIA 103 STATE BANK OF INDIA

SECT-5 ROHINI BRANCH ROHINI, DELHI-110085

114. STATE BANK OF INDIA SBI INTOUCH SHIVAJI ENCLAVE BRANCH GN-3, SHIVAJI ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI-110027

104. STATE BANK OF INDIA

DAV SCHOOL CAMPUS BRANCH DARBARI LAL, DAV SCHOOL, BN BLOCK, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088

115. STATE BANK OF INDIA SHALIMAR BAGH DELHI BRANCH AL BLOCK , DDA SHOPPING COMPLEX, SHALIMARBAGH, DELHI-110052

105. STATE BANK OF INDIA

ROHINI BRANCH BLOCK NO E-2/25,

GMV COLLEGE BRANCH MURTHAL ROAD, GVM GIRLS COLLEGE, SONEPAT, HARYANA-131001[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 2993 116. STATE BANK OF INDIA NATIONAL MARKET BRANCH PASCHIM ENCLAVE PLOT NO 2 & 3, LOCAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, BLOCK F, 1ST FLOOR OPPOSITE NATIONAL MARKET, PASCHIM ENCLAVE, DELHI-110087

117. STATE BANK OF INDIA GOHANA BRANCH BARODA ROAD, DISTT. SONEPAT, HARYANA-131301

118. STATE BANK OF INDIA G.T. ROAD MURTHAL BRANCH GT ROAD DIST-SONEPAT, HARYANA-131027

119. STATE BANK OF INDIA MODEL TOWN SONEPAT BRANCH NEAR OLD COURTS, ROHTAK ROAD, SONEPAT, HARYANA-131001

120. STATE BANK OF INDIA SME KUNDLI BRANCH JANTI ROAD, KUNDLI, SONEPAT,HARYANA-131028

121. STATE BANK OF INDIA VPO-GHARWAL, DISTT-SONEPAT, HARYANA-131030

128. STATE BANK OF INDIA SONEPAT MINI SECTT BRANCH MINI SECRETARIAT, SONIPAT, HARYANA-131001

129. STATE BANK OF INDIA Y.S. MODEL SCHOOL BRANCH PHASE I, BUDH VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110086

130. STATE BANK OF INDIA ROHINI BRANCH CSC-II, SECTOR-13, DDA MARKET, FIRST FLOOR, ROHINI, DELHI-110034

131. STATE BANK OF INDIA GANNAUR BRANCH CHOTIMANDI, RYL. RD.GANAUR, SONEPAT, HARYANA-131101

132. STATE BANK OF INDIA RACPC, NARAINA INDUSTRIAL AREA BRANCH DELHI59, COMMUNITY CENTRE, NARAINA INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEW DELHI-110028

POOTH KALAN BRANCH BLOCK KANJAHWALA POOTH KALAN, NEW DELHI-110041

122. STATE BANK OF INDIA KARALA BRANCH STATE BANK OF INDIA, KARALA, NEW DELHI-110081

123. STATE BANK OF INDIA RAMA MARKET BRANCH PITAMPURA NEW DELHI-110034

124. STATE BANK OF INDIA BADMALIK BRANCH PO-PS RAI , SONEPAT, HARYANA-131029

125. STATE BANK OF INDIA JJAGSI BRANCH AGSI, TEHSIL-GOHANA, DISTT-SONEPAT, HARYANA-124319

126. STATE BANK OF INDIA 133. STATE BANK OF INDIA DELHI NARELA BRANCH D160D160, 1ST FLOOR, FC-IV,DSIDC INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, NARELA, DELHI-110001

134. STATE BANK OF INDIA GOHANA (AM) BRANCH ANAJ MANDI, GOHANA, SONEPAT, HARYANA-136128

135. STATE BANK OF INDIA ASHOK VIHAR BRANCH SHAKTI NAGAR EXTENSION, ASHOK VIHAR, PHASE 3, NEW DELHI -110052

136. STATE BANK OF INDIA HASTSAL AREA BRANCH VIKASPURI (HASTAL AREA), NEW DELHI-110018

137. STATE BANK OF INDIA NEW DELHI JOUNTI BLOCK BRANCH JOUNTI VILLAGE, NEW DELHI-110081

127. STATE BANK OF INDIA GHARWAL BRANCH

SARAGTHAL BRANCH H.NO.577, PWD ROAD, VILL & POST-SARAGTHAL, DISTT-SONIPAT, HARYANA-1313052994 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 138. STATE BANK OF INDIA

GOHANA MINI SECTT BRANCH NEW BUILDING, SONEPAT ROAD GOHANA, HARYANA-131301

SECTOR 8 R.C. COMPLEX ROHINI BRANCH P.B. NO.10005, BALAJI PLAZA, SECTOR-8, ROHINI, DELHI-110085

139. STATE BANK OF INDIA

142. STATE BANK OF INDIA

WAZIRPUR, DELHI BRANCH R G CITY CENTRE BLOCK B LSC LAWRENCE ROAD, DELHI-110035

NANGLOI JAT BRANCH K-61, ADHYAPAK NAGAR, MAIN NAJAFGARH ROAD, NEAR NARAIN DHARAMKANTA, NANGLOI, NEW DELHI-110041

143. STATE BANK OF INDIA

140. STATE BANK OF INDIA

EAST PUNJABI BAGH BRANCH 28/12, EAST PANJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI-110026

AVTAR ENCLAVE PASCHIM VIHAR BRANCH PLOT NO.182, AVTAR ENCLAVE, PACHIM VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110063

141. STATE BANK OF INDIA

नई दिल्ली, 5 अक्तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 1051.—कें द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976

(1987 में यथा संशोधित) के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) के अनुसरण में भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के सूचीबद्ध शाखाओं को

अधिसूचित करती है, जिनके 80% से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है : -

[फा. सं. 11016/2/2017-हिं.(अधि.)]

राजीव कु मार, सहायक निदेशक (राजभाषा)

राजभाषा नियम 10(4) के अंतर्गत अधिसूचित कराने के लिए शाखाओं की सूची

1. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक बरपाईगुड़ा शाखा

3. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक बज्रकोट शाखा

बालुगाँ

बरपाईगुड़ा मुख्य रोड़,

जिला : पुरी

जिला : कोरापुट

राज्य: ओडिशा

राज्य: ओडिशा

पिन : 752030

पिन : 764043

4. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक लोछापड़ा शाखा

2. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक आंबपुआ शाखा

लोछापड़ा रोड़,

नृसिंह बालाजी निवास,

ब्रह्मपुर

आंबपुआ मुख्य रोड़,

जिला : गंजाम

आंबपुआ

राज्य: ओडिशा

जिला : कोरापुट

पिन : 760001

राज्य: ओडिशा

पिन: 7600107[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 2995 5. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक बिषमकटक शाखा

सल्ट कृ ष्णा स्ट्रीट, बिषमकटक

जिला : रायगड़ा

राज्य: ओडिशा

पिन : 765019

6. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक गुनुपुर बाजार शाखा

गांधी पब्लिक स्कू ल के सामने, गुनुपुर

जिला : रायगड़ा

राज्य: ओडिशा

पिन : 765022

7. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक टिकीरी शाखा

(यूएआईएल कैं पस)

जिला : रायगड़ा

राज्य: ओडिशा

पिन : 765015

8. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक दिगपहंडी शाखा

मुख्य रोड़, दिगपहंडी

जिला :गंजाम

राज्य: ओडिशा

पिन : 761012

9. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक कोंकरड़ा शाखा

जिला : गंजाम

राज्य: ओडिशा

पिन : 761114

10. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक एसएमई शाखा

प्रथम तल, मिरानिया टावर

गांधी मार्ग, अनुगुल

जिला: अनुगुल

राज्य: ओडिशा

पिन: 759122

11. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक कु मुसी शाखा

प्लॉट संख्या - 8028, ढेंकानाल जिला: ढेंकानाल

राज्य: ओडिशा

पिन: 759019

12. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

एनटीपीसी (टीटीपीएस) कै म्पस शाखा

हाउस नंबर-3R/2, सैक्टर-II

टीटीपीएस कै म्पस, तालचेर

जिला: अनुगुल

राज्य: ओडिशा

पिन: 759101

13. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक पीबीबी शाखा प्लॉट नंबर- 925

6 वां लेन, अमलापड़ा

जिला: अनुगुल

राज्य: ओडिशा

पिन: 759122

14. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक स्टेशन बाजार शाखा

प्लॉट नंबर. 74/7069

शिवम टावर, प्रथम तल,

मैन रोड, ढेंकानाल

जिला: ढेंकानाल

राज्य: ओडिशा

पिन: 759013

15. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक बड़ त्रिबिड़ शाखा

जिला-अनुगुल

राज्य: ओडिशा

पिन: 759117

16. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक पदमपुर शाखा वाया-राईसुयान

जिला-कें दुझर

राज्य: ओडिशा

पिन: 758013

17. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक सहरपड़ा शाखा

जिला-कें दुझर

राज्य: ओडिशा

पिन: 7580162996 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 18. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक धुसूरी शाखा

26. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक कप्तिपदा शाखा

जिला-भद्रक

जिला-मयूरभंज

राज्य: ओडिशा

राज्य: ओडिशा

पिन: 756119

पिन: 757040

27. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक ंटा शाखा श्यामाखू

19. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक जामझड़ी शाखा

जिला-मयूरभंज

जिला-बालेश्वर

राज्य: ओडिशा

राज्य: ओडिशा

पिन: 757049

पिन: 756126

28. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक भूषण स्टील प्लांट शाखा

20. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक कें दुआपड़ा शाखा

नरेंद्रपुर, कु सुपंगा, मेरामु ंडुली

जिला-भद्रक

जिला: ढेंकानाल

राज्य: ओडिशा

राज्य: ओडिशा

पिन: 756112

पिन: 759121

21. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक नीलगिरि शाखा राजनीलगिरी

29. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक बोइंडा शाखा किशोरगंज

जिला-बालेश्वर

जिला: अनुगुल

राज्य: ओडिशा

राज्य: ओडिशा

पिन: 756040

पिन: 759127

30. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

22. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक रुपसा शाखा

डिमिरिमु ंडा, शाखा

जिला-बालेश्वर

राज्य: ओडिशा

किशोरनगर, प्रधान कॉम्प्लेक्स,

पिन: 756028

पुलिस स्टेशन के सामने

राजकिशोरनगर

जिला: अनुगुल

23. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक बलियापाल शाखा

राज्य: ओडिशा

जिला-बालेश्वर

पिन: 759126

राज्य: ओडिशा

पिन: 756026

31. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक जमपड़ा शाखा

24. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

जिला : कें द्रापड़ा

बस्ता शाखा मैन रोड, बस्ता बाजार

राज्य: ओडिशा

जिला-बालेश्वर

पिन : 754244

राज्य: ओडिशा

पिन:756029

32. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक ंटा शाखा सहदेवखू

सहदेवखू ंटा पुलिस स्टेशन के सामने

25. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक भूआसुणी शाखा कु सुमबंध

जिला: बालेश्वर

जिला-मयूरभंज

राज्य: ओडिशा

राज्य: ओडिशा

पिन: 756001

पिन: 757092[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 2997

New Delhi, the 5th October, 2020

S.O. 1051.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government, hereby notifies the listed Branches of State Bank of India, more than 80% of the staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

[F. No. 11016/2/2017-OL(Noti.)]

RAJIV KUMAR, Assistant Director (OL)

LIST OF BRANCHES TO BE NOTIFIED UNDER RULE 10 (4) OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE

RULE, 1976

1. STATE BANK OF INDIA BAIPARIGUDA BRANCH BAIPARIGUDA MAIN ROAD DIST : KORAPUT STATE: ODISHA PIN : 764043

2. STATE BANK OF INDIA AMBAPUA BRANCH NRUSINGHA BALAJI NIWAS AMBAPUA MAIN ROAD, AMBAPUA DIST : GANJAM STATE: ODISHA PIN : 760010

3. STATE BANK OF INDIA BAZARKOT BRANCH VIA BALUGAON DIST : PURI STATE: ODISHA PIN : 752030

4. STATE BANK OF INDIA LOCHHAPADA BRANCH LOCHHAPADA ROAD BERHAMPUR DIST : GANJAM STATE: ODISHA PIN : 760001

5. STATE BANK OF INDIA BISAMKATAK BRANCH SALT KRISHNA STREET BISAMKATAK DIST : RAYAGADA STATE: ODISHA PIN : 765019

6. STATE BANK OF INDIA GUNUPUR BAZAR BRANCH IN FRONT OF GANDHI PUBLIC SCHOOL P.O.GUNUPUR

DIST : RAYAGADA STATE: ODISHA PIN : 765022

7. STATE BANK OF INDIA TIKIRI BRANCH (UAIL CAMPUS) DIST : RAYAGADA STATE: ODISHA PIN : 765015

8. STATE BANK OF INDIA DIGAPAHANDI BRANCH MAIN ROAD, DIGAPAHANDI DIST : GANJAM STATE: ODISHA PIN : 761012

9. STATE BANK OF INDIA KANKARADA BRANCH DIST : GANJAM STATE: ODISHA PIN : 761114

10. STATE BANK OF INDIA SME BRANCH 1ST FLOOR, MEERANEEYA TOWER GANDHI MARG DIST : ANGUL STATE: ODISHA PIN : 759122

11. STATE BANK OF INDIA KUMUSI BRANCH PLOT NO- 8028, DHENKANAL DIST : DHENKANAL STATE: ODISHA PIN : 759019

12. STATE BANK OF INDIA NTPC (TTPS) CAMPUS BRANCH HOUSE NO-3R/2, SECTOR-II TTPS CAMPUS, TALCHER DIST : ANGUL2998 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] STATE: ODISHA PIN : 759101

13. STATE BANK OF INDIA PBB BRANCH PLOT NO. 925, 6TH LINE, AMALAPADA DIST : ANGUL STATE: ODISHA PIN : 759122

14. STATE BANK OF INDIA STATION BAZAR BRANCH PLOT NO. 74/7069, SHIVAM TOWER, 1ST FLOOR, MAIN ROAD DIST : DHENKANAL STATE: ODISHA PIN : 759013

15. STATE BANK OF INDIA BADA TRIBIDA BRANCH DIST - ANGUL STATE: ODISHA PIN : 759117

16. STATE BANK OF INDIA PADMAPUR BRANCH RAISUAN DIST : KEONJHAR STATE: ODISHA PIN : 758013

17. STATE BANK OF INDIA SAHARPARA BRANCH DIST : KEONJHAR STATE: ODISHA PIN : 758016

18. STATE BANK OF INDIA DHUSURI BRANCH DIST : BHADRAK STATE: ODISHA PIN : 756119

19. STATE BANK OF INDIA JAMJHADI BRANCH DIST : BALASORE STATE: ODISHA PIN : 756126

20. STATE BANK OF INDIA KENDUAPADA BRANCH DIST : BHADRAK STATE: ODISHA PIN : 756112

21. STATE BANK OF INDIA NILAGIRI BRANCH RAJ NILGIRI DIST : BALASORE STATE: ODISHA PIN : 756040

22. STATE BANK OF INDIA RUPSA BRANCH DIST : BALASORE STATE: ODISHA PIN : 756028

23. STATE BANK OF INDIA BALIAPAL BRANCH DIST : BALASORE STATE: ODISHA PIN : 756026

24. STATE BANK OF INDIA BASTA BRANCH MAIN ROAD, BASTA BAZAR DIST : BALASORE STATE: ODISHA PIN : 756029

25. STATE BANK OF INDIA BHUASUNI BRANCH KUSUMBANDH DIST : MAYURBHANJ STATE: ODISHA PIN : 757092

26. STATE BANK OF INDIA KAPTIPADA BRANCH DIST : MAYURBHANJ STATE: ODISHA PIN : 757040

27. STATE BANK OF INDIA SHYAMAKHUNTA BRANCH DIST : MAYURBHANJ STATE: ODISHA PIN : 757049

28. STATE BANK OF INDIA BHUSAN STEEL PLANT BRANCH NARENDERPUR KUSUPANGA, MERAMUNDALI DIST : DHENKANAL STATE: ODISHA PIN : 759121

29. STATE BANK OF INDIA BOINDA BRANCH KISHOREGANJ, DIST : ANGUL STATE: ODISHA PIN : 759127

30. STATE BANK OF INDIA DIMIRIMUNDA BRANCH KISHORENAGAR, PRADHAN COMPLEX, IN FRONT OF POLICE STATION RAJKISHORENAGAR DIST : ANGUL STATE: ODISHA PIN : 759126[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 2999 31. STATE BANK OF INDIA JAMPARA BRANCH DIST : KENDRAPADA STATE: ODISHA PIN : 754244

32. STATE BANK OF INDIA SAHADEVKHUNTA BRANCH NEAR P.S. SAHADEVKHUNTA DIST : BALASORE STATE: ODISHA PIN : 756001

नई दिल्ली, 5 अक्तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 1052.—कें द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 (1987 में यथा संशोधित) के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) के अनुसरण में यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के सूचीबद्ध

शाखाओं को अधिसूचित करती है, जिनके 80% से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है

[फा. सं. 11016/2/2017-हिं.(अधि.)]

राजीव कु मार, सहायक निदेशक (राजभाषा)

राजभाषा नियम 10(4) के अंतर्गत अधिसूचना हेतु शाखाओं की सूची एवं पता

1 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

दुल्ल्हपुर शाखा

ग्राम व पोस्ट दुल्ल्हपुर

तहसील व ब्लॉक जखनीयां

जिला गाजीपुर, उत्तर प्रदेश -275202

2 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

बैजलपुर शाखा

ग्राम व पोस्ट तिवारीपुर

तहसील मोहम्मदाबाद,

जिला गाजीपुर

उत्तर प्रदेश -233227

3 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

मकदूमपुर शाखा

ग्राम व पोस्ट मकदूमपुर

तहसील सैदपुर

जिला गाजीपुर

उत्तर प्रदेश - 233307

4 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

शायर शाखा ग्राम व

पोस्ट शायर ब्लॉक भादौरा

तहसील जमानिया

जिला गाजीपुर -2323273000 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 5 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

मलेठी शाखा

ग्राम मलेठी

पोस्ट धर्मागतपुर

जिला गाजीपुर

उत्तर प्रदेश 233300

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, रायपुर 6 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

मिड कॉर्पोरेट शाखा

ग्राउं ड फ्लोर,

ऐशवर्या चैंबर

जी ई रोड, रायपुर 492001

7 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

चरोदा शाखा

ब्लॉक नं 8ए, प्लॉट नं. 9,

साउथ वसु ंधरा नगर,

जी ई रोड भिलाई 3

चरोदा 490025

8 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

महाराजा चौक शाखा

आनंद राज बिल्डिंग,

महाराजा चौक के समीप

बोरसी रोड आदर्श नगर

दुर्ग -491001

9 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

यू एल पी भिलाई शाखा

ग्राउं ड फ्लोर

ब्लॉक नं 37,

वाकोडकर नर्सिंग होम के समीप

नेहरू नगर वेस्ट,

दुर्ग, भिलाई -490020

10 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

सीपट शाखा

नेशनल थर्मल पावर कॉर्पोरेशन के सामने

बिलासपुर मुख्य रोड

सीपट, बिलासपुर -495006

11 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

नगरनार शाखा

मार्के ट रोड से एनएमडीसी गेट की तरफ,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3001 तहसील नगरनार,

जगदलपुर -494341

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, जयपुर 12 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

धौलपुर शाखा

राजा खेड़ा बाइपास के नजदीक

जी टी रोड,

धौलपुर, राजस्थान

13 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया झोटवाड़ा शाखा

रामनाथ पूरी, कालवाड़ रोड

जयपुर, राजस्थान -302102

14 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

न्यू सांगानेर रोड शाखा

प्लॉट नं 8, विवेक विहार,

न्यू सांगानेर रोड,

जयपुर राजस्थान -302102

15 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया टोंक रोड जयपुर

प्लॉट नं के 7,

इन्कम टैक्स कॉलोनी

टोंक रोड, दुर्गापुरा,

जयपुर राजस्थान -302018

16 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

विद्याधर नगर शाखा

सेंट्रल स्पाइन,

जयपुर, राजस्थान

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, पटना 17 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

बिहियाँ शाखा

साहेब टोला, चौरास्ता रोड, बिहियान

जिला भोजपुर (आरा)

बिहार -802152

18 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

रहुई शाखा

डाकघर रहुई के नजदीक

पोस्ट रहुई, जिला नालंदा,

बिहार 8031193002 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 19 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया चंदौती शाखा

मगध कॉलोनी, रोड नं 11

फस्र्ट हाउस, सिकरिया मोड के नजदीक,

पोस्ट चंदौती (गया),

जिला गया, बिहार -823001

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, प्रयागराज 20 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

बाबूगंज शाखा

मनकामेश्वर मंदिर के पास

बाबूगंज बाजार

पोस्ट बाबूगंज, तहसील फू लपुर

21 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया भरवारी शाखा

पोस्ट भरवारी,

जिला कौशाम्बी,

उत्तर प्रदेश -212021

22 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया मूरतगंज शाखा

जी टी रोड, मूरतगंज

तहसील चायल,

जिला कौशाम्बी,

उत्तर प्रदेश -212021

23 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया वैदाखास शाखा

पोस्ट धीरपुर (गोपीगंज)

जिला संत रविदास नगर,

उत्तर प्रदेश -221303

24 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया शंकरगढ़ शाखा

राम भवन चौराहा, शंकरगढ़

उत्तरप्रदेश -212108

25 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया सियारह शाखा

सियारह मोड,

ग्राम एवं पोस्ट सियारह

तहसील भदोही,

जिला संत रविदास नगर- 221406[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3003 26 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

इटवा उपरवार शाखा

पोस्ट इटवा उपरवार बाल गोविंद

पेट्रोल पंप के सामने

पोस्ट महाराजगंज -221314

27 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

घुरपुर शाखा

ग्राम एवं पोस्ट घुरपुर,

तहसील बारा

इलाहाबाद -212111

28 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

चुनार शाखा

सद्दुपुर मोहना पोस्ट चुनार

जिला मिर्जापुर,

उत्तर प्रदेश -230304

29 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया दुल्हिपुर शाखा

पोस्ट दशरथपुर

ब्लॉक एवं तहसील ज्ञानपुर

संत रविदास नगर -221304

30 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया फू लपुर शाखा

कोतवाली रोड,

पोस्ट एवं तहसील फू लपुर -212402

31 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया ख्योंखर शाखा

ख्योंखर, बसवापुर चौराहा

ग्राम ख्योंखर गुवाली पोस्ट मातेथु

ब्लॉक अभोली

तहसील ज्ञानपुर -221404

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, समस्तीपुर 32 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

अरेराज शाखा ,

अरेराज चौक ऑफिस अरेराज,

पी -एस – अरेराज,

पूर्वी चंपारन, बिहार

33 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया अहियापुर शाखा3004 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] माँ सरोज प्लाज़ा,पोस्ट अहियापुर ,

मुजफ्फरपुर, बिहार – 842004

34 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

काली स्थान-बेगूसराय शाखा

कालिस्थान चौक,

पोस्ट-काली स्थान ,

जिला – बेगुसराई ,

बिहार – 851101

35 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

खजुराहा मिसिर भोरे शाखा

मिरगंज मेन रोड,

पोस्ट एवं पीएस -भोरे ,

जिला -गोपालगंज ,

बिहार – 841426

36 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया गुलाबबाग शाखा

राम मोहिनी चौक,

गुलाबबाग,पुर्णिया

बिहार – 854326

37 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

घेघटा शाखा

गाँव+पोस्ट -घेघटा,थाना- छपरा, मुफ़सील, सारण ,

बिहार – 841301

38 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया झंझारपुर शाखा

मीरा कु ं ज टिबरेवाल लेन,

झंझारपुर रेलवे स्टेशन ,

मधुबनी , बिहार – 847003

39 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया नवगछिया शाखा

ए .टी .- मैन रोड ,

पोस्ट - नवगछिया ,पी .एस.

नवगछिया , भागलपुर ,

बिहार – 853204[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3005 40 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

मैरवा शाखा

विकास मार्के ट,

मंझौली चौक मेन रोड,

मैरवा , सिवान ,

बिहार -841239

41 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया माली घाट शाखा

विकास टावर बीएमपी 6,

दुर्गा मंदिर मेन रोड,

मालीघाट , मुजफ्फरपुर ,

बिहार – 842001

42 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया मिर्ज़ापुर – दरभंगा शाखा

बिभा पैलेस,नियर मिर्ज़ापुर चौक ,

दरभंगा , बिहार – 846004

43 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

रानी सकरपुरा शाखा

भास्कर भवन,

इमली स्टेशन के सामने,

पो +गाँव – रानीसकरपुरा

पीएस – गंगौर ,

खगड़िया , बिहार - 851204

44 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

रामपुर रत्नागर,

बैद्यनाथपुर बलकु ं डा,

हाजीपुर, महुआ रोड,

पी .ओ-बीरनलखनसेन ,

वैशाली, बिहार – 844125

45 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया लौरिया शाखा

एचपीसीएल कै म्पस,

बगहा रोड मेन रोड,

लौरिया , पश्चिमी चंपारन ,

बिहार – 8454533006 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 46 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया शिवहर शाखा

वार्ड न .15 मैन रोड,पोस्ट शिवहर,

शिवहर, बिहार - 843329

47 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया सुगौली शाखा

सुगौली शाखा, स्टेशन चौक,

बस स्टैंड के निकट, सुगौली,

बेत्तिया, बिहार – 845456

48 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

सूतिहारा राम शाखा

सूतिहारा पोखर,गाँव & पोस्ट –

सूतिहारा , सीतामढ़ी ,

बिहार – 843331

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, उदयपुर 49 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

यूनियन लोन पॉइंट शाखा, उदयपुर

पहली मंजिल, प्रिंस प्लाज़ा

झालावाड़ रोड

विज्ञान नगर कोटा -324005

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, लखनऊ 50 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

अल्लु नगर डिगुरिया शाखा

अर्शलान प्लाज़ा

हरदोई बायपास,

आईआईएम रोड

लखनऊ -226020

51 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

क़ै सरगंज शाखा

रानीबाग, क़ै सरगंज,

बहराइच -271903

52 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

गोसाईगंज शाखा

तेजापुर, गोसाईगंज

जिला फै जाबाद -227125

53 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

गौसिंहा शाखा

ग्राम व पोस्ट मल्लापुर

जिला गोंडा -271001[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3007 54 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

डाभा सेमर शाखा

कोकाकोला फ़ै क्टरी के पास

फै जाबाद, इलाहाबाद बायपास

ग्राम हुसैनगंज,

जिला फै जाबाद -222071

55 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

प्रानपुर शाखा

चिरकु टिया पीर बाज़ार

बलरामपुर -271201

56 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

बिजनौर शाखा

बिजनौर, लखनऊ -226002

57 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

यूनियन लोन पॉइंट, अलीगंज शाखा

दूसरी मंजिल, शारदा टावर,

कपूरथाला कॉम्प्लेक्स

अलीगंज, लखनऊ -226024

58 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

रुदौली शाखा

पुष्करपुरम स्टेशन रोड

रुदौली,

जिला फै जाबाद -224140

59 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

सलेमपुर शाखा

प्रकाशलोक कालोनी

शारदा अस्पताल के पास

मोहान रोड, लखनऊ -227107

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, भोपाल 60 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

शुजालपुर शाखा

पंचवटी परिसर

रेलवे स्टेशन गेट, फ्रीगंज

पिन -465333

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गोरखपुर 61 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

खजनी शाखा

खजनी बाजार, सिकरीगंज रोड

गोरखपुर, उत्तर प्रदेश -2712323008 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 62 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

नटवा शाखा

अराजी संख्या 347

नियर नटवा चौराहा

बांसपार, बझौली,

जिला महाराजगंज

उत्तर प्रदेश -273306

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, वाराणसी 63 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया क्षेत्र महाप्रबंधक कार्यालय

एस-2/638- ए चंद्रा चैंबर्स

सेंट्रल जेल रोड,

सिकरौल -221002

64 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

अलीनगर शाखा,

मकान क्रमांक -38

मुगल चक,

मुगल सराय चंदौली

65 यूनियन बैंक आफ इंडिया एकौना शाखा,

ग्राम-एकौना,पोस्ट –अमाओं

सहबगंज, चंदौली

उत्तर प्रदेश - 232118

66 यूनियन बैंक आफ इंडिया गंगापुर शाखा,

ग्राम-गंगापुर पोस्ट –गंगापुर

वाराणसी उत्तर प्रदेश - 221302

67 यूनियन बैंक आफ इंडिया जयापुर शाखा,

ग्राम-जयापुर

पोस्ट –अराजी लाइन

वाराणसी

उत्तर प्रदेश 221109

68 यूनियन बैंक आफ इंडिया तेजोपुर शाखा,

ग्राम-तेजोपुर, पोस्ट–नौबतपुर,

चंदौली उत्तर प्रदेश 232110[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3009 69 यूनियन बैंक आफ इंडिया पलहीपट्टी शाखा,

ग्राम-पलहीपट्टी , पोस्ट –भटौली

वाराणसी उत्तर प्रदेश 221208

70 यूनियन बैंक आफ इंडिया पिंडरा शाखा,

ग्राम-पिंडरा,

पोस्ट –पिंडरा

वाराणसी उत्तर प्रदेश -221206

71 यूनियन बैंक आफ इंडिया

भट्टी शाखा,

अराज़ी क्र.- 1046,

1016, 1047 , 848 ,

भट्टी,वाराणसी

उत्तर प्रदेश -221009

72 यूनियन बैंक आफ इंडिया मुनारी शाखा,

ग्राम-मुनारी, पोस्ट –मुनारी

वाराणसी उत्तर प्रदेश -221008

73 यूनियन बैंक आफ इंडिया रामनगर शाखा,

ग्राम-रामनगर, पोस्ट –रामनगर, वाराणसी

उत्तर प्रदेश -221104

74 यूनियन बैंक आफ इंडिया

लंका शाखा,

बी-, 17 -ए , सरस्वती टोवर,

लंका, वाराणसी,

उत्तर प्रदेश - 221005

75 यूनियन बैंक आफ इंडिया

सराय पक्ववान शाखा,

ग्राम-सराय पकवान , पोस्ट –संघती

चंदौली उत्तर प्रदेश - 232118

76 यूनियन बैंक आफ इंडिया

सेवा शाखा, S-5/38-15-117,3010 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] विंधवासिनी नगर, अर्दली बाज़ार,

वाराणसी.चंदौली

उत्तर प्रदेश -232118

77 यूनियन बैंक आफ इंडिया सिरसी शाखा,

ग्राम माछीहान, पोस्ट बिसोरी

चंदौली उत्तर प्रदेश -232118

78 यूनियन बैंक आफ इंडिया

अमरा शाखा,

ग्राम - अमरा ,पोस्ट - अमरा

चंदौली उत्तर प्रदेश -232105

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, जौनपुर 79 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

जगदीशपुर शाखा

ब्लॉक सिरकोनी, तहसील जौनपुर

जिला जौनपुर -222002

80 यूनियन बैंक ओफ़िं डिया

ताखापुरब शाखा

ग्राम पोस्ट, ताखापुरब,

ब्लॉक व तहसील शाहगंज,

जिला जौनपुर,

उत्तर प्रदेश -223101

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, दिल्ली दक्षिण 81 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

उद्योग नगर शाखा

आई-12, डीएसआईडीसी इंडस्ट्रियल काम्प्लेक्स ,

उद्योग नगर मेट्रो स्टेशन के सामने,

उद्योग नगर पोस्ट नांगलोई, डिस्ट्रिक्ट दिल्ली

न्यू दिल्ली -110041

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, दिल्ली उत्तर 82 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

गौर सिटी शाखा

शॉप न. 8,9,10,11,12,

सैक्टर 16 सी,

जेके जी पाम कोर्ट, गौर सिटी

83 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया नोएडा सेक्टर 51 शाखा[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3011 शर्मा मार्कि ट शॉप नो . 1&2,

नियर रेड लाइट,

सेक्टर -51 नॉएडा,

गौतम बुद्ध नगर

84 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

नोएडा सेक्टर 143 शाखा

शॉप न 138,139,140,141,142,

एके बाना गली, गुलशन एके बाना,

प्लॉट न GH-03/A,

सैक्टर 143 नोएडा

85 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

मयूर विहार फे ज थ्री शाखा

अग्रवाल कोंडली प्लाजा प्लाट नंबर 7,

मिक्स्ड हाउसिंग स्कीम एल एस सी १ ,

कोंडली

मयूर विहार -थ्री, दिल्ली

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, करनाल 86 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

नरवाना शाखा

दिलीप चंद मार्के ट ,

अपोलो चौक के सामने

रेलवे रोड, नरवाना जिला,

जिला जीन्द,

हरियाणा -126416

87 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया नारनौल शाखा

सैनी एन्क्लेव, बस स्टैंड के पास

नारनौल, जिला महेंद्रगढ़

हरियाणा -123001

88 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

बावल शाखा

बनीपुर चौक, जयपुर रोड, बावल

पोस्ट बावल,

जिला रेवाड़ी,

हरियाणा -123501

89 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया खरखौदा शाखा3012 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] वार्ड नंबर 9, दिल्ली रोड

सब्जी मंडी के निकट,

खरखौदा, सोनीपत,

हरियाणा -131402

90 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

हुडा सोनीपत शाखा

सेक्टर 14,

हुडा कॉम्प्लेक्स,

दिल्ली रोड

जिला सोनीपत,

हरियाणा -131001

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, रांची 91 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

टंडवा शाखा,

ग्राम- टंडवा, डाकघर- टंडवा

जिला - चतरा, झारखण्ड

पिन – 825321

92 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

रसोइया धमना शाखा ,

ग्राम + पोस्ट - रसोइया धमना

दुर्गा मंदिर के पास,

जिला – हजारीबाग ,

झारखंड -825405

93 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

पाण्डु शाखा

ग्राम + पोस्ट - पाण्डु, ब्लॉक – पाण्डु, जिला –

पलामू,

झारखंड ,पिन - 822124

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, कोल्हापुर 94 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया ,

अक्कलकोट शाखा

3/2814/ धोंगडे काम्प्लेक्स ,

एस टी स्टैंड, स्टेशन रोड

पो अक्कलकोट ,

डिस्ट्रिक्ट सोलापुर ,

महाराष्ट्र -413216[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3013 95 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया फलटण शाखा

शिवाजी नगर, रिंग रोड

वाई सी कॉलेज के सामने,

प्लॉट नं 3320/1, फलटण, सतारा

महाराष्ट्र -415523

96 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

वाई शाखा

लक्ष्मी हॉल 138/2 ए,

सोंगीरवाड़ी

वाई, तालुका वाई

सातारा,

महाराष्ट्र -415415

97 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया शिरवल शाखा

वास्मती बिल्डिंग,

शाहजीत चौक

एस टी स्टैंड शिरवल,

सतारा महाराष्ट्र -415415

98 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया यूएलपी सोलापुर

शरद चैंबर्स, 560/59,

साउथ सदर बाज़ार, कैं प सोलापुर

महाराष्ट्र -413003

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, अहमदाबाद 99 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

सीएमएस, अहमदाबाद

प्रथम तल, सीएमएस, सेवा शाखा,

कार्गो मोटर के सामने,

सीजी रोड, जिला अहमदाबाद

गुजरात -380006

100 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

मिड कॉर्पोरेट शाखा

भूतल, प्रेमचंद हाउस

172/1, आश्रम रोड

अहमदाबाद, गुजरात -3800093014 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, मु

ंबई दक्षिण 101 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

कफ परेड शाखा

625 जी डी सोमानी मेमोरियल स्कू ल

जी डी सोमानी मार्ग, कफ परेड,

मु ंबई -400 005

102 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया लालबाग शाखा

शॉप नं 1,2 एवं 3, अनंत अपाटर्मेंट

मेघवाडी, डॉ एस एस राव रोड

लालबाग, मु ंबई -400 012

103 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

लोअर परेल शाखा

यशवंत भवन, भूतल

दीपक टॉकीज, पांडुरंग बुधकर मार्ग

लोअर परेल,

मु ंबई -400 013

104 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

वडाला पश्चिम शाखा

वडाला टेलीफोन एक्सचेंज परिसर क्र 2

भूतल, जी डी आंबेडकर रोड

नायगांव वडाला (पश्चिम),

मु ंबई -400019

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, पुणे 105 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

ओतूर शाखा,

ओंकर हाइट्स, ब्रहमनवाड़ा रोड,,

ग्राम पंचायत मिलकत नंबर 4152,

पोस्ट ओतूर,

तालुका जुन्नर पुणे,

महाराष्ट्र-412409

106 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

कु रुली शाखा

समृध्दि बिल्डिंग, हा. क्र.1945,

गेट नं. 07, मु.पो. कु रुली, तालुका खेड,

जि. पुणे, महाराष्ट्र

पिन -410501[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3015 107 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया कान्हेसार शाखा

शॉप क्र 6,7 व 8

अपर ग्राउं ड फ्लोर,

कामर्शियल काम्प्लेक्स,

खेड पबाल रोड,

पुणे, पिन – 410505

108 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया खराड़ी शाखा

दुकान न 3,

अर्रीसा एवेन्यू,

कोल्ते पाटील डाऊनटाउन,

खराड़ी, पुणे,

महाराष्ट्र-411014

109 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

डीएसके विश्व शाखा

6, वसुधा, डीएसके विश्व धायरी,

पुणे

महाराष्ट्र-411041

110 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया पुणे रिटेल आस्ति-पुणे कैं प

2 ए, अरोरा टावर्स 9,

मोलेदिना रोड,

पुणे कै म्प,

जि.पुणे ,

महाराष्ट्र,

पिन - 411 001.

111 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया बालेवाड़ी शाखा

शॉप क्र 1व 2,

श्री रेसीडेंसी ,

एस क्र 6/5/2,

बानेर - बालेवाड़ी रोड,

बालेवाड़ी, बाणेर,

पुणे, महाराष्ट्र- 4110453016 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 112 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

मिड कॉर्पोरेट शाखा

285, ताराबाघ सोसाईटी,

कोरेगाँव पार्क ,

पुणे महाराष्ट्र – 411001

संपर्क : 020-26130089

113 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

यू एल पी अहमदनगर

फरहत टावर, प्लॉट नंबर 8,

पुणे औरंगाबाद रास्ता,

स्टेशन रोड अहमदनगर पुणे,

महाराष्ट्र- 414001

114 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया सेवा शाखा पुणे

पीएमटी बिल्डिंग, स्वारगेट,

पुणे महाराष्ट्र-411042

115 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

सिंहगढ़ रोड शाखा

प्लॉट क्र 41 धनलक्ष्मी सोसाइटी,

17/3 ऑफ सिंहगढ़ रोड

जिला पुणे महाराष्ट्र,

जिला पुणे,

महाराष्ट्र - 411 051

116 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

अंचलीय लेखा परीक्षा कार्यालय

परवानी एस्टेट, 289/3 जे. एन रोड,

भेवनी पेठ, पीबी नंबर-1602, पुणे,

महाराष्ट्र-411042

117 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

कोरेगांव पार्क शाखा

ताराबाग सोसाइटी,

कोरेगांव पार्क ,पुणे,

महाराष्ट्र,जिला पुणे,

महाराष्ट्र - 411 001[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3017 क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, चंडीगढ़ 118 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

भटौली शाखा

गांव व डाक अजोली,

एसवीएसडी कॉलेज

हिमाचल प्रदेश

119 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

नारायणगढ़ शाखा

मिनी सचिवालय के सामने

चंडीगढ़ नाहन रोड, नारायणगढ़

जिला अंबाला, हरियाणा

120 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया पालमपुर शाखा

गीतांजली कॉम्प्लेक्स मेन बाज़ार

स्टेट बैंक के नजदीक

पालमपुर, कांगरा जिला

हिमाचल प्रदेश -176061

121 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया डबवाली शाखा

गांधी चौक, पुरानी अनाज मंडी,

मंडी डबवाली,

जिला सिरसा, हरियाणा

122 यूनियन बैंक ओफ़िं डिया गग्गल शाखा

धर्मशाला रोड

गग्गल गाँव

123 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया चंदेड़कलां शाखा

गाँव व जिला चंदेड़कलां

तहसील टोहाना

फतेहाबाद हरियाणा

124 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया दीवाना शाखा

गाँव व पोस्ट दीवाना, उप-तहसील जाखल

तहसील टोहाना

जिला फतेहाबाद

125 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया बरवाला पंचकु ला शाखा

बंसल कॉम्प्लेक्स

बरवाला पंचकु ला3018 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, जालंधर 126 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

धारीवाल शाखा

जी टी रोड,

नये बस स्टैंड के पास

धारीवाल,

जिला गुरदासपुर,

पंजाब -143519

127 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया कलानौर शाखा

ग्राम पोस्ट कलानौर

पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के सामने,

बटाला रोड,

जिला गुरदासपुर,

पंजाब -143512

128 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

पट्टी शाखा

मिल्क चिलिंग सेंटर के पास, वार्ड नं. 2 मेन रोड,

पट्टी तरण रोड

पंजाब -143416

129 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

एसएसआई जालंधर शाखा

एम 5 इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया

जालंधर पंजाब -144004

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, नासिक 130 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

चालीसगांव शाखा

ग्राउं ड फ्लोर,30/ए प्लाट नं. 3

अभिनव स्कू ल के समाने

भड़गोंव रोड, चालीसगाव,

चालीसगाव,

131 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

यू एल पी औरंगाबाद

शॉप क़ 3-4 कौस्तुभ प्लाज़ा,

प्लॉट क़ 219 समर्थ नगर,

औरंगाबाद

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, मु ंबई (पश्चिम) 132 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

विरार पूर्व शाखा

शॉप न. 1, 2 & 3,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3019 चोरगे टावर्स, फू लपाड़ा रोड, विरार पूर्व,

जिला- ठाणे -401303

133 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

सिप्ज़ मु ंबई ओवरसीज शाखा

भूतल, यूनिट न. 007,

ब्लॉक न. 2,

सीप्ज़, कॉम्प्लेक्स,

जोगेश्वरी- विक्रोली लिंक रोड,

मरोल अद्योगिक क्षेत्र, अंधेरी (पू),

मु ंबई - 400096

134 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

दहानु शाखा

संखे बंगलो, अंबवादी, ईरानी रोड

पोस्ट- दहानु रोड,

उपमंडल – दहानु

जिला- ठाणे ,

महाराष्ट्र – 401602

135 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया यारी रोड शाखा

सार्थक हाइट्स

प्रियदर्शनी सीएचएस लिमेटेड,

शालीमार बेकरी लेन,

ऑपोजिट- सीडबल्यूसी स्कू ल,

वर्सोवा, अंधेरी पश्चिम - 400061

136 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया लिंक रोड शाखा

शॉप न. 1,2,3,4

अग्रवाल इंफिनिटी हाइट्स,

सीटीएस न. 149/बी,

ऑरलेम, मार्वे रोड,

ऑफ लिंक रोड,

मालाड पश्चिम

– 400064

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, त्रिवेन्द्रम 137 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

एडमूलक्कल शाखा

कोडियाडू भवन3020 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नियर पोस्ट ऑफिस, अयूर

कोल्लम -691533

138 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया किलिमनूर शाखा

एस प्लाज़ा, एम सी रोड,

किलिमनूर

के रल -695601

139 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया चावडा शाखा

नंदनन बिल्डिंग नं 17/1095

चावडा पंचायत कार्यालय के सामने

कोल्लम, के रल -691583

140 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया तिरुमला शाखा

जपा विलास

मांगद तिरुमला, पी ओ त्रिवेन्द्रम

के रल -695006

141 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया नलनचिरा शाखा

बिल्डिंग नं के पी III/230

नलनचिरा, पीओ कु रुषादि जंक्शन

नलनचिरा तिरुवन्तपुरम

के रल -695015

142 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया पनचमुडु-वेल्लरदा शाखा

कृ पा पैलेस,

के एसआरटीसी बस स्टैंड के सामने

वेल्लारदा, पीओ के रल -695505

143 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

पॉलीमुक्कु शाखा

एसएस टावर, मदन नाड़ा

पालिमुक्कु , पीओ कोल्लम

डिस्ट्रिक्ट के रल -695501

144 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

बलरामपुरम शाखा

कृ ष्ण, एनएच रोड[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3021 बलरामपुरम

त्रिवेन्द्रम, के रल -695501

145 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

वट्टीयूरकावू शाखा

टी सी 6/404-1,

रुक्मिणी आर्के ड

तिरुवन्तपुरम,जिला,

के रल -695013

146 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

वेंमोंय शाखा

सेंट मैरिस आर्थोडॉक्स चर्च

वेंमोंय पीओ चेंगन्नूर,

के रल -689509.

147 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया विषिंजम शाखा

मिनी मंदिरम

पुल्लूकोणर्म, विषिंजम,

पी ओ त्रिवेन्द्रम

के रल -695521

148 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

कु ण्डरा कोल्लम शाखा

पुष्पमंगलम भवन,

एन हच 208

(क्यूएस रोड़),

कु ण्डरा पी.ओ., कोल्लम जिला,

के रल -691501

149 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया कलवूर शाखा

छिलोरा भवन, कलवुर उत्तर जंक्शन

एनएच 47, आलप्पुषा, कलवूर

के रल -690521

150 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

कायम्कु लम शाखा

भवन संख्या 30/2032,

हर्षा पर्यटन भवन,

आर्चादेवी, पुथियडम,3022 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] कायम्कु लम, आलप्पी जिला,

के रल -690502

151 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया कोडिअर शाखा

आदर्श टी सी

4/987(1), 4/987(2), त्रिवेन्द्रम,

के रल -695003

152 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

तैकाड शाखा

गंगोत्री बिल्डिंग, एयर रोड,

तैकाड, तिरुवनन्तपुरम

के रल -695014

153 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

तिरुवनन्तपुरम रिटेल असेट शाखा

यूनियन बैंक भवन एम जी रोड,

स्टेचू जंक्शन

तिरुवनन्तपुरम (त्रिवेन्द्रम)

के रल -695001

154 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया नेडुमंगाड़ शाखा

सरस्वती कॉम्प्लेक्स

नेडुमंगाड़, तिरुवनन्तपुरम

जिला, के रल -695541

155 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

नेय्याट्टिंकारा शाखा

एस एन डी पी नेय्याट्टिंकारा

यूनियन बिल्डिंग,

नेय्याट्टिंकारा पोस्ट ऑफिस

त्रिवेन्द्रम, के रल -695121

156 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया पुजप्पुरा शाखा

शिवानी मीनारम,

कॉर्पोरेशन मंडी के सामने,

पुजप्पुरा

तिरुवनन्तपुरम,

के रल -695012[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3023 157 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया पथनापुरम शाखा

प्लाविलइल भवन, मेन रोड कोल्लम जिला

पथनापुरम

के रल -689695

158 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

पुनलूर शाखा

सारा शॉपिंग कॉम्प्लेक्स

टी बी जंक्शन

वालकोड पो ओ पुनलूर-पथनापुरम रोड

कोल्लम जिला, के रल -690331

159 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया पोतनकोड शाखा

एल्लाबीं टावर्स,

सेक्टर क्र 478/13,

पोथनकोड-मंगलपुरम रोड

तिरुवनन्तपुरम

जिला-के रल -695584

160 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया मणकाड शाखा

के पीएन प्लाज़ा

मणकाड जंक्शन,

तिरुवनन्त्पुरम,

के रल -695009

161 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

मानार शाखा

भवन संख्या 944/4,

लक्ष्मी भवन,

कु रट्टीसेरी, मानार

पी ओ अलप्पि जिला,

के रल -689622

162 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

मावेलिकारा कु रुतियाड शाखा

के आर यू एम भवन

थेक्काकारा पी ओ

आल्लपि जिला,

मावेलीकारा,

के रल -6901073024 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 163 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया वत्तापारा करकु लम शाखा

लक्ष्मी शॉपिंग मॉल

वत्तापारा पी ओ

त्रिवेन्द्रम, के रल -695028

164 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

वर्क ला शाखा

पीवीएम भवन,

टेंपल रोड वर्क ला पी ओ

तिरुवनन्तपुरम जिला

मैदानाम, के रल -695141

165 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

वलियामला शाखा , चित्रा,

भारतीय अंतरिक्ष विज्ञान एवं प्रौद्योगिकी

संस्थान,

प्रोद्योगिकी कै म्पस वलियामला नेडुमंगाड़

तिरुवनन्तपुरम जिला,

के रल -695547

166 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

श्रिकारीयम शाखा मणशांति भवन,

श्रिकारीयम आकु लन रोड

तिरुवनन्तपुरम

जिला के रल -695017

167 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

सेवा शाखा तिरुवनन्तपुरम

दूसरी मंजिल, यूनियन बैंक भवन

पो बॉक्स क्र 307, एम जी रोड, स्टेचू जंक्शन,

तिरुवनन्तपुरम जिला

के रल -695001

168 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया हरिप्पाड शाखा

रेतनममा टावर्स,

एन एच 47,

सरकारी अस्पताल के पास

हरिप्पाड, के रल -690514

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, विशाखापट्टनम 169 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

सर्पवरम जंक्शन शाखा

प्रथम तल, डी नं 10/134,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3025 पिठापुरम रोड

श्री हनुमान मंदिर के निकट,

सर्पवरम जंक्शन

काकीनाड़ा 530005,

आंध्रा प्रदेश

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, चेन्नई 170 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

पोर्ट ब्लेयर शाखा

10, गांधी भवन,

अबेरदीन बाजार,

पोर्ट ब्लेयर

जिला अंडमान,

अंडमान निकोबार द्वीप समूह

पिन -744101

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, भुवनेश्वर 171 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

आठगढ़ शाखा

लॉ कॉलेज रोड,

ब्लॉक कॉलोनी,

आठगढ़

172 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

ओड़ागांव शाखा

टेम्पल रोड ओड़ागांव, नयागढ़,

173 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

कु ं जबनगढ़-दसपला शाखा

गोपीनाथ मार्के ट कॉम्प्लेक्स,

प्लॉट नं. – 2324/3053,

दुर्गा बाजार,

दसपला ब्लॉक के पास

174 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

कामाक्ष्यानगर शाखा

श्रीराम रेसिडेंसी, वार्ड नंबर - 6,

कामाक्ष्यानगर

175 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

गोपालपुर शाखा

पत्थरा छक,

बाहादुरपेटा,

बरहमपुर- 7600073026 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 176 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

चंडीछक शाखा

नया बाज़ार छक, पारादीप रोड़

कटक- 753004

177 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

चावलियागंज शाखा

नया बाज़ार छक, पारादीप रोड़

कटक- 753004

178 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

जयरामपुर शाखा

जयरामपुर पंचायत ऑफिस,

भोगराई,

बालासोर - 756038

179 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

जलेश्वर शाखा

बड़ा बाजार, जलेश्वर

बालेश्वर -756032

180 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

जाजपुर रोड शाखा

चोरदा रोड,जाजपुर रोड,

जिला-जाजपुर,

उड़ीसा- 755019

181 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

तालचर शाखा

वार्ड न॰ 18, हांडिधुआ छक

तालचर, अंगुल – 759100

182 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

नारायणपुर शाखा

नियर श्रीरामपुर ग्राम पंचायत

श्रीरामपुर,लक्षमीनाथ,राइबनिया,

बालासोर- 756032

183 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

पट्टामु ंडर्इ शाखा

बस स्टैड के पास

गजानना मार्के ट कॉम्प्लेक्स,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3027 पट्टामु ंडर्इ,

के न्द्रपाडा- 754215

184 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

बालीचन्द्रपुर शाखा

पोस्ट ऑफिस बालीचंद्रपुर,

पताराजपुर के पास,

जिला जाजपुर – 754205

185 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

बासुदेवपुर शाखा

पोस्ट ऑफिस रोड बासुदेवपुर,

भद्रक,

ओडिशा – 756168

186 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया भंजनगर शाखा

सरकारी अस्पताल के सामने,

भंजनगर

जिला- गंजाम,

ओड़ीशा-761 126.

187 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया मंगलपुर शाखा

पोस्ट ऑफिस मंगलपुर,

कणिकापाड़ा के पास,

जिला जाजपुर,

ओड़ीशा- 754205

188 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया मर्क त नगर शाखा

एबीआईटी कै म्प्स सेक्टर-1,

सीडीए,

मर्क त नगर अभिनव बिडानासी, कटक,

ओड़ीशा- 753014

189 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

महुरा शाखा

सी वी रमन

इंजीनीयरिंग कॉलेज कै म्पस, जनला,

जिला - खुर्दा, भुवनेश्वर,

ओड़ीशा- 7520543028 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 190 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

रेमुना-जानुगंज शाखा

गणेश्वरपुर, जानुगंज, बालेश्वर

ओड़ीशा- 756019

191 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया रायरंगपुर शाखा

प्लॉट नंबर - 54/1066,

वार्ड नंबर - 9, रायरंगपुर,

ओड़ीशा- 757043

192 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया लुईस रोड शाखा

प्लॉट नंबर 2862,

लूइस रोड, खुर्दा,

भुवनेश्वर, ओड़ीशा- 751002

193 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया श्रीकोना शाखा

प्लॉट नं. 3837/6176 (पी),

श्रीकोना,

हमलेट - मिर्जापुर,

ओड़ीशा- 758025

194 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

शहीद नगर शाखा

ओएसपीएच एंड डब्लूएक्स लिमिटेड. कम्पॉउन्ड,

जनपथ पो. भोईनगर भुवनेश्वर,

जिला : खुर्दा ओड़ीशा- 751022

195 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

सत्यबादी साक्षीगोपाल शाखा

एसबीआई के सामने मेन रोड.

पो. साक्षीगोपाल

जिला :पुरी

ओड़ीशा- 752014

196 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

हिंजिलीकट शाखा, रश्मि प्लाजा,

चौधरी मार्के ट कांपलैक्स.

मेन रोड हिंजिलकट,

जिला: गंजाम

ओड़ीशा-761 102.

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, बेलगावी 197 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

गदग शाखा

श्री एस के कबादर बिल्डिंग

एपीएमसी यार्ड कॉम्प्लेक्स 'प्रगति'

एपीएमसी यार्ड रोड,

पीओ गडग, जिला गडग,

कर्नाटक -582101

198 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

गुरमिटकल शाखा

1-5-15, मेन रोड, गुरमिटकल

जिला यादगीर,

कर्नाटक -585214

199 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

मुधोल कलबुर्गी शाखा

कोलकु ं डा क्रॉस के नजदीक,

मुधोल, तालुका सेडम

जिला कलबुर्गी

कर्नाटक -585318

200 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

महान्तेशनगर शाखा

श्री ए बी गोवेकर्स बिल्डिंग,

फ़स्र्ट फ्लोर , अंजनेया नगर, अशोका कॉम्प्लेक्स,

सेक्टर 10 सीटीसी 6531-6534,

पोस्ट मलमारुति एमएम एक्सटेंशन

जिला बेलगाम -590016

201 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया यादगीर शाखा

कलबूरगी टावर्स,

न्यू विधान शौध के नजदीक,

चित्तपुर रोड,

जिला यादगीर,

कर्नाटक -585202

202 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

सैडापुर यादगीर शाखा

प्लॉट नं 73/74,

महावीर कॉलोनी,3030 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] यादगीर रोड, सैडापुर,

जिला यादगीर,

कर्नाटक -585221

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, बेंगलूरु 203 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

नरासपुरा शाखा

सर्वे नंबर 294/4, भूतल

बेल्लूर गाँव , नरसापुरा होबली,

कोलार -563133, कर्नाटक

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, कोयंबतूर 204 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

अविनाशी शाखा

15/78 ए-6

भारतीदासन स्ट्रीट,

कोवई मेन रोड, अविनाशी,

जिला कोयंबतूर -641654

205 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

उदगमंडलम शाखा

190/4 हैडफील्ड रोड,

जे एस कॉम्प्लेक्स

पहली मंजिल, हिलबंक, ऊटी जिला नीलगिरिज,

तामिलनाडु -643001

206 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

थिरुवानाकोविल शाखा

2 नंबर वी एस नगर

चीनई ट्रंक रोड, थिरुवानाकोविल

जिला तिरुचिरापल्ली – 621005

207 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया पीलामेडु शाखा

नं 437 अविनाशी रोड

शांति थिएटर के सामने,

पीलामेडु कोयंबतूर -641004

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, कोझिकोड 208 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

चित्तूर (पालकाड जिला)

आर के बिल्डिंग,

चित्तूर पालक्कड़

चित्तूर पोस्ट पालक्कड़

के रल -678101[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3031 209 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया कल्पेट्टा शाखा

मीनाक्षी कॉम्प्लेक्स,

कल्पेट्टा पोस्ट वायनाड

के रला -673121

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, विजयवाड़ा 210 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

भवानीपुरम शाखा

फ्लैट सं 307, भवानी टावर्स

स्वाती रोड,

भवानीपुरम कृ ष्णा जिला

विजयवाड़ा,

आंध्रा प्रदेश -520012

211 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया कु रुमद्दली शाखा

द्वार क्रमांक 4-111ए

वेधापुरम रोड

अंजेयना स्वामी मंदिर के पास

जिला कृ ष्णा -521157

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, एर्णाकु लम 212 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

एडापल्ली टोल शाखा

टोल जंक्शन

एनएच 47 एडापल्ली

एर्णाकु लम के रल -682024

213 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया कड़मकु डी शाखा

मड़तिल परमबिल हाउस

पिजहला पोस्ट,

कोचीन -682027

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, सिलीगुड़ी 214 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

सेवक रोड शाखा

रेमबो हाउस (बेसमेंट)

पोस्ट सिलीगुड़ी,

जिला दार्जिलिंग

पश्चिम बंगाल -734001

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, कोट्टायम 215 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, कोट्टायम

तीसरा माला, अमला टावर,

आड़ेचिरा जंक्शन,3032 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] तेल्लकम

पी ओ, कोट्टायम -686016

216 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

एरुमेली दक्षिण शाखा

कल्लुकु लंगरा बिल्डिंग,

अरुमेली मु ंडकायम रोड

प्राइवेट बस स्टैंड के पास,

एरुमेली पोस्ट कोट्टायम,

के रल -686509

217 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया थेनगना शाखा

आजीलिमूत्तिल कण्णवत्ता,

पेरुम्बनची, पोस्ट-चंगनाचेर्री

कोट्टायम, के रल -686536

218 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

सानथनपारा शाखा

पी के आर बिल्डिंग,

पूप्परा पोस्ट उडुन्बंचोला तालुका

सानथनपारा, इडुक्की,

के रल -685619

New Delhi, the 5th October, 2020

S.O. 1052.— In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987),the Central Government, hereby notifies the listed Branches of Union Bank Of India, more than 80% of the staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

[F. No. 11016/2/2017-OL (Noti.)]

RAJIV KUMAR, Assistant Director (OL)

LIST OF BRANCHES FOR NOTIFICATION UNDER O.L. RULE 10(4)

Regional Office, Ghazipur 1 Union Bank Of India

vill.- Dullahpur Post-Dullahpur, Block/Tehsil-Jakhania, Dist-Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh Pin-275202[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3033

2 Union Bank of India

AT & PO Tiwaripur, Tehsil Mohammadabad, AT & PO Tiwaripur, Tehsil: Mohammadabad, Uttar Pradesh- 233227

3 Union Bank of India

PO Makhdumpur, S.Dist. Saidpur, Dist. Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh -233307

4 Union Bank of India Sayer Branch PO Sayer, Block Bhadaura, S. Dist. Zamania, Uttar Pradesh – 232327

5 Union Bank of India

Village Malethi (Rural),Village malethi,Po- dharmagathpur, District- Ghazipur, 233300

Regional Office, Raipur 6 Union Bank of India

Mid Corporate Branch Ground Floor Aishwarya Chamber GE Road, Raipur -492001

7 Union Bank of India

Charoda branch Block no. 8A, Plot no. 9, South Vasundhra Nagar, G.E. Road,Bhilai 3 Charoda -490025 Bhilai

8 Union Bank of India

Maharaja chowk Branch Anand raj bhuilding Near Maharaja Chowk, Borsi Road, Adarsh nagar, Durg- 491001

9 Union Bank of India

ULP Bhilai Ground Floor, Block no. 37, Beside Wakodkar Nursing Home, Nehru Nagar(W), Bhilai -490020

10 Union Bank of India Seepat Branch In Front Of NTPC Material gate, Bilaspur Main Road Seepat, Bilaspur -495006

11 Union Bank of India

Nagarnar Branch Road from Market to NMDC Gate, Tehsil Nagarnar, Distt Jagdalpur – 4943413034 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Regional Office, Jaipur 12 Union Bank of India

Dholpur Branch Near Raja Khera Byepass G T Road, Byepass, Dholpur, Rajasthan

13 Union Bank of India

Jhotwara, Jaipur Branch Ramnath Puri Kalwad Road Jaipur Jaipur, Rajasthan -302102

14 Union Bank of India

New Sanganer Road branch Plot No 8, Vivek Vihar, New Sanganer Road Jaipur, Rajasthan -302102

15 Union Bank of India

Tonk road Shakha Plot No K-7, Income Tax Colony Tonk road, Durgapura Jaipur, Rajasthan -302018

16 Union bank of India

Vidyadhar Nagar Branch Central Spine, Jaipur Rajasthan

Regional Office, Patna 17 Union Bank of India

Bihiya branch Saheb Tola, Chaurasta road, Bihiya dist.Bhojpur (Arrah) Bihar -802152

18 Union Bank of India Rahui Branch Near Rahui Post Office PO Rahui Dist.Nalanda, Bihar -803119

19 Union bank Of India

Chandauti branch Magadh colony, Road No. 01, first house, Near Sikaria More PO Chandauti, Dist Gaya Bihar -823001

Regional Office, Prayagraj 20 Union bank of India

Babuganj Branch Near mankameshwar Mandir Babuganj Bazar PO Babuganj, Tah- Phoolpur

21 Union Bank of India

Bharvaari Branch Post Bharwari,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3035 Dist.Kaushambi Uttar Pradesh -212201

22 Union Bank of India

Muratganj branch G.T.Road Mooratganj Tahsil chall Dist.Kaushambi Uttar Pradesh -212201

23 Union Bank of India

Vaidakhas Branch Post Dheerpur (gopiganj) Sant ravidas nagar Uttar Pradesh -221303

24 Union bank of India

Shankargarh branch Raam Bhavan Chouraha Shankargarh, Uttar Pradesh -212108

25 Union Bank of India Siyaraha Mod Village and post Siyaraha Dist Sant Ravidas Nagar -221406

26 Union Bank of India Itwa Uparwar Branch Post Itwa Uparwar Opposite of Bal Govind Petrl Pump Post Maharajganj -221314

27 Union Bank of India

Ghurpur Branch Village & Post Ghurpur Tahsil BARA, Prayagraj -212111

28 Union Bank of India Chunar Branch Saddupur Mohana Post Chunar , Dist Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh -231304

29 Union Bank of India

Dulhipaur Branch Post Dashrathpur Block & Tahsil Gyanpur Sant Ravidas Nagar -221304

30 Union Bank of India Fulpur Branch Kotwali Road Post and Tahsil Fulpur -212402

31 Union Bank of India

Khyonkhar Branch Baswapur Chouraha,3036 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Village Khyonkhar Guwali Post Matethu Block Abholi Tahsil Gyanpur- 221404

Regional Office, Samastipur 32 Union Bank Of India

Areraj Branch At- Areraj Chowk, Po - Areraj, Ps - Arearaj , East Champaran , Bihar – 845411

33 Union Bank of India

Ahiyapur branch Maa saroz plaza, Post Ahiyapur , Muzaffarpur Bihar – 842004

34 Union Bank of India

Kali Sthan-Begusarai Branch Kalisthan Chowk, Post-Kalisthan, District-Begusarai, Bihar – 851101

35 Union Bank of India

Khajuraha Misir Bhore Branch Mirganj Main Road, Post A7, Ps-Bhore, Dist.-Gopalganj , Bihar –841426

36 Union Bank of India

Gulabbag branch Rammohini chowk, Gulabbag,purnea , Bihar – 854326

37 Union Bank of India

Gheghta branch Village+post- gheghta, Thana-Chapra,Mufasil, Saran, Bihar - 841301

38 Union Bank of India,

Meera kunj tibrewal lane, Jhanjharpur Railway Station , Madhubani Bihar - 847003

39 Union Bank Of India Naugachhiya Branch At- Main Road, Po- Naugachhia, Ps- Naugachhia , Bihar - 853204

40 Union Bank Of India Mairwa Branch Vikas Market, Manjhauli Chowk[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3037

Main Road,

Mairwa , Siwan ,

Bihar – 841239

41 Union Bank of India

Mali ghat branch Vikas tower bmp 6, Durga mandir main road, Malighat , Muzaffarpur , Bihar- 842001

42 Union Bank of India

Mirzapur-darbhanga branch Bibha palace, Near Mirzapur Chowk , Darbhanga , Bihar- 846004

43 Union Bank of India

Rani sakarpura branch Bhaskar bhawan In Front Of Imli Station, Po+Vill-Ranisakarpura Ps- Gangaur , Khagaria, Bihar- 851204

44 Union Bank of India,

Rampur Ratnagar, Baidyanathpur Balkunda, Hazipur, Mahua Road, Po- Birnalakhansen , Vaishali , Bihar- 844125

45 Union Bank of India Lauria branch Hpcl Campus, Bagha Road, Main Road, Bihar , West Champaran – 845453

46 Union Bank of India

Sheohar branch Ward No 15 Main Road, Po Seohar, Shivhar , Bihar – 843329

47 Union Bank of India –

SUGAULI, Station Chowk, Near Bus Stand - Sugauli, Sugauli Bettiah , Bihar – 845456

48 Union Bank of India Sutihara ram branch Sutihara pokhar, Village & Post- Sutihara, Sitamarhi , Bihar – 843331

Regional Office, Udaipur 49 Union Bank of India

Union Loan Point Branch First Floor, Prince Plaza Jhalawar Road Vigyan Nagar; Kota -3240053038 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Regional Office, Lucknow 50 Union Bank of India

Allu Nagar Deguria Branch Arshlawn Plaza, Hardoi Bypass, IIM Road, Lucknow -226 020

51 Union Bank Of India

Kaisarganj Branch Ranibagh, Kaisarganj Bahraich -271 903

52 Union Bank of India

Gosainganj Branch Tezapur, Gosainganj Dist. Faizabad -227125

53 Union Bank of India

Gausinha Branch Village & Post Mallapur Dist Gonda 271001

54 Union Bank of India

Dabha Semar Branch Near Coca Cola Factory, Faizabad Allahabad Bypass, Village Husainganj Dist. Faizabad -222071

55 Union Bank of India

Pranpur Branch Chirkutiya Peer Bazar Balrampur -271201

56 Union Bank of India

Bijnaur Branch

Bijnaur,

Lucknow -226002

57 Union Bank of India

Union Loan Point Branch 2nd floor, Sharda Tower Kapoorthlaa Complex Aliganj, Lucknow -226024

58 Union Bank of India

Rudauli Branch

Pushkarpuram,

Station Road

Rudauli Dist.

Faizabad -224120

59 Union Bank of India

Salempur Branch Prakashlok Colony Near Sharda Hospital Mohan Road, Lucknow -227107

Regional Office, Bhopal 60 Union Bank of India

Shujalpur Branch

Panchawati kParishar Near Railway Station Gate Freeganj -465333

Regional Office, Gorakhpur 61 Union Bank of India

Khajani Branch Khajani Bazar, Sikariganj Road Gorakhpur UP -271232

62 Union Bank of India

Natawa Branch Araji Sankhyaa 347, Near Natawa Chauraha, Banspaar, Bajhauli Dist.Maharajganj, UP -273306

Regional Office, Varanasi 63 Union Bank of India

Field General Managers Office S-2/638 A Chandra Chambers Central Jail Road, Sikraul -221002

64 Union Bank Of India,

Alinagar Branch, Survey No. 38, Mughal Chak Alinagar Mughalsarai

65 Union Bank Of India, Ekauna Branch, Vill-Ekauna,Post-Amaon Sahabganj Chandauli, U.P-232118

66 Union Bank Of India,

Gangapur Branch, Vill-Gangapur, Post- Gangapur Varanasi , U.P-221302

67 Union Bank Of India,

Gangapur Branch, Vill-Jayapur, Post-Araji line Varanasi , U.P-221109

68 Union Bank Of India, Tejopur Branch, Vill- Tejopur, Post-Naubatpur Chandauli , U.P-232110

69 Union Bank Of India,

Palahipatti Branch, Vill- Palahipatti, Post-Bhatauli Varanasi , U.P-221208

70 Union Bank Of India, Pindra Branch, Branch Code: 577570 Varanasi , U.P-2212063040 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 71 Union Bank Of India, Bhatti Branch, Arazi. No-1046, 1016 , 1047 & 848 , Bhatti Varanasi U.P-221209

72 Union Bank Of India, Munari Branch, Branch Code: 573833 Varanasi , U.P-221104

73 Union Bank Of India,

Ramnagar Branch, Vill- Ramnagar , Post-Ramnagar Varanasi , U.P-221104

74 Union Bank Of India, Lanka Branch, B-29/17, 17-a, Saraswati Tower,, Lanka Varanasi , U.P-221104

75 Union Bank Of India, Sarai Pakvan Branch, Vill- Sarai Pakvan , Post-Sanghati Chandauli Varanasi , U.P-232118

76 Union Bank Of India,

Service Branch, S-5/38-15-16-17,1stFloor, Vindhya Vasini Nagar, Orderly Bazar Varanasi , U.P-221002

77 Union Bank Of India, Sirasi Branch, Vill- Rampur Machhihan, Post- Bisori, Chandauli Varanasi U.P-232118

78 Union Bank Of India, Amra Branch, Vill- AMRA, Post- Amra , Chandauli Varanasi , U.P-232105

Regional Office, Jaunpur 79 Union Bank of India

Jagdishpur Branch Block Sirkoni, Tehsil Jaunpur Dist.Jaunpur State UP -222022

80 Union Bank of India

Takhapurab Branch Post Takhaa Purab, Block tehsil, Shahganj,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3041 Dist.Jaunpur Uttar Pradesh -223101

Regional Office, Delhi (South) 81 Union Bank of India Udyog Nagar Branch 1-12, DSIDC Indl.Complex, Nr Udyog Ngr Metro Stn., Udyog Nagar, PO Nangloi, S. Dist. Delhi, Dist Delhi, New Delhi -110041

Regional Office, Delhi (North) 82 Union Bank Of India

Gaur City Branch Shop No. 8,9,10, 11,12, Sector 16C, JKG Palm Court, Gaur City -201009

83 Union Bank Of India

Noida Sector 51 Branch Sharma Market Shop No. 1&2, Near Red Light, Sector -51 Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh

84 Union Bank Of India

Noida Sector 143 Branch Shop No. 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, Ikebana Street, Gulshan Ikebana, Plot No. GH-03/A, Sector 143, Noida 201309, Uttar Pradesh

85 Union Bank Of India

Mayur Vihar -III Aggarwal Kondli Plaza, Plot No-7, Mixed Housing Scheme , LSC 1, Kondli, Mayur Vihar -III, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh

Regional Office, Karnal 86 Union Bank of India

Narwara Branch Dilip Chand Market, Near Opollo Chowk, Railway Road Narwana, Dist.Jind, Haryana -126416

87 Union Bank of India

Narnaul Branch Saini Enclave, Near Bus Stand Narnaul, Dist. Mahendragarh Haryana 123001

88 Union Bank of India Bawal Branch Banipur Chowk, Jaipur Road PO Bawal, Dist.Rewari, Haryana 1235013042 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

89 Union Bank of India

Kharkhauda Branch Near Subzi Mandi Kharkhauda Sonipat Haryana 131402

90 Union Bank of India Huda Sonepat Branch Sector 14, Huda Complex Delhi Road, Dist.Sonepat, Haryana 123501

Regional Office, Ranchi 91 Union Bank of India,

Tandwa Branch, Vill+ Post – Tandwa

Near Durga Mandir, District-Chatra, Jharkhand,

PIN – 825321

92 Union Bank Of India,

Rasoia Dhamna Branch Vill+ Post - Rasoia Dhamna

Near Durga Mandir, District –Hazaribag, Jharkhand-825405

93 Union Bank Of India, Pandu Branch, Village+Post- Pandu, Block- Pandu, District –Palamu, Jharkhand - 822124

Regional Office, Kolhapur 94 Union Bank of India

Akkalkot Branch 3/2814, Dhongade complex Near ST Stand, Station road, Akkalkot, solapur Maharashtra -413216

95 Union Bank of India

Phaltan Branch, Shivaji Nagar, Ring Road, Oppy C College, Plot No 3320/1 Phaltan, Satara Maharashtra -415523

96 Union Bank of India Wai Branch Laxmi Hall 138/2, A Songirwadi (Wai) Taluka Wai, Satara Maharashtra -415415

97 Union Bank of India

Shirwal Branch Vasmati Building, Shahajeet Chouk, ST Stand Sjhirwal Satara, Maharashtra -415415[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3043 98 Union Bank of India ULP Solapur Sharad Chambers 560/59, South Sadar Bazar Camp Solapur, Maharashtra -413003

Regional Office, Ahmedabad 99 Union Bank of India

CMS 1st floor, CMS Service branch Opp.Cargo Motors, CG Road, Dist.Ahmedabad, Gujrat -380006

100 Union Bank of India

Mid Corporate Branch Ground Floor, Premchand House 172/1, Ashram Road Ahmedabad, Gujarat -380009

Regional Office, Mumbai South 101 Union Bank of India

Cuffe Pared Branch 625 G D Somani Memorial School G D Somani Marg, Cuffe Pared Mumbai -400 005

102 Union Bank of India

Lalbaug Branch Shop No.1,2 and 3 Anant Apartment Meghwadi, Dr S S Rao Lalbaug Mumbai -400012

103 Union Bank of India

Lower Parel Branch Yeshwant Bhavan, Ground Floor Deepak Talkies, Pandurang Bhudkar marg, Lower Parel Mumbai -400013

104 Union Bank of India Wadala West Branch Wadala Telephone Exchange Premises no. 2, ground floor G.D.Ambedkar Road, Naigaon, Wadala (W), Mumbai -400019

Regional Office, Pune 105 Union Bank of India

Otur Branch Onkaar Heights Brahmanwada Road Gram Panchayat Milkat No.4152 PO Otur, Tal.Junnar, Pune, Maharashtra -4124093044 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 106 Union Bank of India Kuruli Branch Samrudhi Building, H No.1945, Gate No 07 At & post Kuruli, Taluka Khed, Dist.Pune, Maharashtra -410501

107 Union Bank of India

Kanhesaar Branch Shop No.6, 7 and 8, upper ground floor Commercial Complex, Khed Pabal Road Taluka Khed, Dist.Pune, Maharashtra -410505

108 Union Bank of India

Kharadi Branch Shop No.3, Arrisa Avenue Kolte Patil Downtowan, Kharadi, Pune, Maharashtra -411014

109 Union Bank of India

DSK vishv Branch 6 Vasudhaa, DSK Vishwa Dhayari, Pune, Maharashtra -411041

110 Union Bank of India

Pune Retail Asset – Pune Camp 2-A Arora Towers, 9 moledina Road, Pune Camp, dist.Pune Maharashtra -411001

111 Union Bank of India

Balewadi Branch Shop No 1 & 2 Shree Residency S No.6/5/2, Baner Balewadi Road Dist. Baner, Pune Maharashtra -411001

112 Union Bank of India

Mid Corporate 1st floor, 285 Tarabaug Society, Opp.Bund Garden, Koregaon Park Pune, Maharashtra -411001

113 Union Bank of India ULP Ahmednagar Farhat Tower, Plot No.8 Pune-Aurangabad road, Station Road, Ahmednagar Maharashtra

114 Union Bank of India Service Branch Pune PMT Building,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3045 Swargate Pune-Maharashtra -411051

115 Union Bank of India Sinhgad Road Branch Plot No.41, Dhanlaxmi Soc.Sr.No.16/21 17/3, Off Sinhgad Road Dist. Pune, Maharashtra -411051

116 Union Bank of India

Zonal Audit Ofice Parwani Estate 289/3, J N road, bhawani Peth PB No 1602, Pune-Maharashtra -411042

117 Union Bank of India

Koregaon Park Branch Tarabaug society Koregaon Park, Pune Dist.Pune Maharashtra -411001

Regional Office, Chandigarh 118 Union Bank of India

Bhatouli Branch Village & Post Ajouli SVSD College, Himachal Pradesh

119 Union Bank of India Narayangarh Branch Opp. Mini Secretariat Near Subhash Chowk, Chandigarh Nahan Road Naraingarh, Dist.Ambala, Haryana

120 Union Bank of India

Palampur Branch Geetanjali Complex, mainBazar, Near SBI Palampur,dist.Kangra, Himachal Pradesh -176061

121 Union Bank of India

Dabwali Branch Gandhi Chowk, Old Anaj Mandi, Dabwali, Dist.Sirsa, Haryana -125104

122 Union Bank of India Gaggal Branch Dharamshala Road Village Gaggal

123 Union Bank of India

Chaderkalan Branch3046 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Village & Post Chaderkalan Tahsil Tohana

124 Union Bank of India

Diwana Branch VPO Diwana Sub-Tehsil Jakhal, Tehsil Tohana, Dist. Fatehabad

125 Union Bank of India

Barwala Panchkula Branch Bansal Complex Barwala Panchkula

Regional Office, Jalandhar 126 Union Bank of India

Dhariwal Branch GT Road, New Bus Stand Dhariwal, Dist.Gurdaspur, Punjab -143519

127 Union Bank of India

Kalanaur Branch Opp Punjab National Bank, Batala Road Dist.Gurdaspur, Punjab -143512

128 Union Bank of India Patti Branch Newar Milk Chilling Centre, Ward No.2, Main road (Patti Taran Road), Dist.Taran Taran, Punjab -143416

129 Union Bank of India

SSI Jalandhar Branch M-5, Industrial Area, Jalandhar, Punjab -144004

Regional Office, Nasik 130 Union Bank of India

Chalisgaon Branch Gr Floor, 30/A, plot no 3 opp Abhinav School, Bhadgaon Road , Chalisgaon

131 Union Bank of India

ULP Aurangabad Shop NO 3-4 Kaustubh Plaza, Plot no 219 Samarth Nagar, Aurnagabad

Regional Office, Mumbai (West) 132 Union Bank of India

Virar East Branch Shop no. 1,2 & 3, Chorge Towers,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3047 Phulpada Road, Virar East, Dist – Thane – 401303

133 Union Bank of India

Seepz Overseas Ground Floor, unit No. 007, Block No. 2, Seepz, Complex, Jogeshwari-Vikroli Link Road, Marol Industrial Area, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400096

134 Union Bank of India

Dahanu Branch Sankhe Bunglow, Ambawadi, Irani Road, PO Dahanu Road, S-Dist – Dhanau Dist- Thane Maharashtra – 401602

135 Union Bank of India

Yaari Road Branch Sarthak Heights Priyadarshani CHS LTD. Shalimar Bakery Lane, Opp CWC School, Versova, Andheri West – 400061

136 Union Bank of India

Link Road, Maarve Branch Shop No. 1,2,3,4 Agarwal Infinity heights, CTS No. 149/B, Orlem, Marve Road, Off Link Road, Malad West - 400064

Regional Office, Trivandrum 137 Union Bank of India

Edamulackal (Ayur) Branch Kodiyattu Complex, Anchal road Kollam -691533

138 Union Bank of India

Kilimnoor Branch S Plaza M.C.Road Kilimanoor Junction Kilimanoor, Kerala -695601

139 Union Bank of India

Chavra Branch Nandana Builing, Building No.17/1095 In front of Chavara Panchayat Office, Kollam, Kerala -6915833048 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

140 Union Bank of India

Thirumala Branch Japa Vilas, Namgad, Thirumala PO Trivandrum, Kerala -695006

141 Union Bank of India

Nalanchira Branch Building No. KP III/230, Nalanchira PO Near Kurushadi Junction, Nalanchira, Thiruvanthapuram Kerala -695015

142 Union Bank of India

Panachamoodu Vellarada Branch Kripa Palace, Near KSRTC Bus Stand Vellarada P O Kerala -695505

143 Union Bank of India

Pallimukku Branch Pallimukku Branch SS Tower, Masdan Nada, Pallimukku, PO Kollam, Dist.Kerala -691014

144 Union Bank of India

Balaramapuram Branch Krishna, NH Road Balaramapuram, Trivandrum Kerala -695501

145 Union Bank of India

Vattiyoorkavu Branch TC6/404-1, Rukmini Arcade, Dist. Trivandrum, Kerala -695013

146 Union Bank of India

Venmony Branch St.Mary's Orthodox Church Venmony PO Chengannur Kerala -689509

147 Union Bank of India

Vizhinjam Branch Mini Mandiram Pulloorkonam, Vizhinjam, PO Trivandrum, Kerala -695521

148 Union Bank of India

Kundra Kollam Branch Pushpamangalam Bldg., NH 208 (QS Road) PO Kundara, dist., Kollam, Kerala -691501[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3049

149 Union Bank of India

Kalvoor Branch Chilora bldg., North of Kalavoor, Jn NH 47 Dist. Alappuzha, Kalavoor, Kerala -690521

150 Union Bank of India Kayamkulam Branch Building no. 30/2032 Harsha Tourist Home, Archadevi, Puthiyadam Kayamkulam, dist.Alleppey Kerala -690502

151 Union Bank of India

Kowdiar Branch Adarsh TC 4/987(1), 4/987(2), Trivandrum, Kerala -695003

152 Union Bank of India

Thycaud Branch Gangothri building, Air Road, Thuycaud, Dist.Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala -695014

153 Union Bank of India

Thiruvanthpuram Retail Asset Branch Union Bank Bhavan M G Road, Statue Junction Thiruvanthpuram (Trivandrum), Kerala -695001

154 Union Bank of India Nedumangad Branch Saraswathy Complex Nedumangad Dist. Thiruvananthapuram Kerala -695541

155 Union Bank of India Neyyattinkara branch SNDP Neyyattinkara PO Trivandrum, Kerala -695121

156 Union Bank of India

Poojappura Branch Shivani Minaram, Opp.Corporation Market, Poojapura, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala -695012

157 Union Bank of India

Pathanapuram Branch Plavilayil buiding, Main Road, Dist. Kollam Pathanapuram, Kerala -6896953050 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

158 Union Bank of India

Punalur Branch Sara Shopping Complex T B Juncion, PO Valacode Punalur Pathenpuram Road Dist. Koltam, Kerala -690331

159 Union Bank of India

Pothencode Branch Ellarbee Towers, Sector No.478/13, Pothencode Mangalapuram Road Dist. Thiruvananthapuram Kerala -695584

160 Union Bank of India

Manacaud Branch KPN Plaza, Manacaud Junction Thiruvananthaapuram Kerala -695009

161 Union Bank of India

Mannar Branch Building No.944/4, Lakshmi Building, Kurattissery Mannar PO Dist.Alleppey Kerala -689622

162 Union Bank of India

Mavelikara Kurathiyad Branch KRUM building PO Thekkakara, Dist.Alleppey Mavelikara, Kerala -690107

163 Union Bank of India

Vattapaaraa karkulam branch Lakshmi shopping maal Vattapara PO Trivandrum, Kerala -695028

164 Union Bank of India

Varkala Branch PVM Building Temple road, PO Varkala Dist.Thiruvananthapuram Maidanam, Kerala -695141

165 Union Bank of India

Valiyamala Branch Chitra, India Institute Of Space Science & Technology, Campus, Valiyamal Nedumangad, Dist.Thiruvananthapuram Kerala -695547[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3051

166 Union Bank of India

Saareekariyam Branch Manashanthi building Sreekariyam, Akkulam road Dist.Thiruvanathapuram, Kerala – 695017

167 Union Bank of India

Service BranchThiruvanthpuram 2nd floor, Union Bank Bldg. P Boc. No.307 MG Road, Statue Junction, Dist.Trivandrum, Kerala -695001

168 Union Bank of India

Harippad Branch Ratnamma Towers, NH 47, Near govt. Hospital Harippad, Kerala -6906514

Regional Office, Vishakhapatnam 169 Union Bank of India

Sarpavaram Junction Branch 1st floor, D No.10/134 Pithapuram Road Near Sri Hanuman Temple Sarpavaram Junction, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh -530005

Regional Office, Chennai 170 Union Bank of India

Port Blair Branch 10 Gandhi Bhavan Aberdeen Bazar, Port Blair Dist Andamaan, Andaman & Nicobar Island , Pin -744101

Regional Office, Bhuvneshwar 171 Union Bank Of India,

Athagarh branch, Law College Road, Block Colony, Athagarh

172 Union Bank Of India,

Odagaon Branch, Law College Road, Block Colony,Athagarh

173 Union Bank Of India,

Kunjabanagarh-Daspalla Gopinath Market Complex, Plot No. – 2324/3053, Durga Bazar (Near Daspalla Block)

174 Union Bank Of India,

Kamakshya Nagar Branch Sriram Residency,, Ward No - 6, Kamakshya Nagar3052 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 175 Union Bank Of India,

Gopalpur Branch Patthara Chhak, Bahadurpeta, Berhampur- 760007

176 Union Bank Of India,

Chandichhak Branch Nuabazar Chhak, Paradeep Road Cuttack- 753004

177 Union Bank Of India,

Gopalpur Branch

Nuabazar Chhak,

Paradeep Road

Cuttack- 753004

178 Union Bank Of India,

Jairampur Branch Inside Jairampur Panchayat, Bhograi, Balasore- 756038

179 Union Bank Of India,

Jaleshwar BRANCH Badabazar, Jaleswar Balasore- 756032

180 Union Bank Of India,

Jajpur, Road Branch Chorda Road, Jajpur Road Jajpur, Odisha- 755 019.

181 Union Bank Of India, Talcher Branch Ward No 18, Handidhua Chak Talcher, Angul- 759100

182 Union Bank Of India,

Narayanpur Branch Near Srirampur Gram Panchayat Srirampur,Laxminath, Raibania, Balasore- 756032

183 Union Bank Of India,

Pattamundai Branch Gajanan Market Complex, Near Bus Stand , Pattamunda, Kendrapara – 754215

184 Union Bank Of India,

Balichandrapur BRANCH Post Office Balichandrapur, At Patarajpur, Dist Jajpur- 754205

185 Union Bank Of India,

Basudebpur Branch[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3053 Post Office Road Basudebpur Bhadrak, Odisha – 756168

186 Union Bank Of India,

Bhanjanagar Branch Opposite Govt Hospital, Bhanjanagardist Ganjam, Odisha - 761 126

187 Union Bank Of India,

Mangalpur Branch Post Office Mangalpur At Kanikapada, Dist Jajpur Odisha – 754 205

188 Union Bank Of India,

Markatnagar Branch Abit Campus Sector-1 Cda Markatnagar Abhinav Bidanas Cuttack, Odisha – 753014

189 Union Bank Of India, Mahura Branch C V Raman College of Engineering Campus, Janla, Dist. Khurda, Bhubaneswar, Odisha – 752054

190 Union Bank Of India,

Remuna-Januganj Branch At Ganeswarpur, Januganj,Balasore, Odisha – 756019

191 Union Bank Of India,

Rairangpur Branch Plot No - 54/1066, Ward No - 9, Rairangpur, Odisha – 757043

192 Union Bank Of India,

Lewis Road Branch Plot No-2862, Lewis Road, Khordha, Odisha – 751002

193 Union Bank Of India, Srikona Branch Plot No.3837/6176 (P), Srikona, Hamlet-Mirzapur, Odisha – 758025

194 Union Bank Of India,

Sahidnagar Branch Compound of Osph & Wxltd, Janapath Po: Bhoinagar ,Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha Odisha – 7510223054 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 195 Union Bank Of India,

Satyabadi Sakhigopal Branch Main Road Infront Of Sbi Sakhigopal District: Puri Odisha – 752014

196 197Union Bank Of India,

Hinjilcut Branch Rashmi Plaza, Chaudhury Market Complex, Main Road, Hinjilcut, Dist. Ganjam, Odisha - 761 102

Regional Office, Belgaum 197 Union Bank Of India

Gadag Branch 6690/183, Mr.S K Kabadar's Bldg., APMC Yard Comp 'Pragati', APMC Yard Rd, PO Gadag,Dist Gadag, Karnataka

198 Union Bank Of India

Gurumitkal Branch NO.1-5-15,MAIN ROAD, GURUMITKAL, DIST YADGIR

199 Union Bank Of India

Mudhol Kulburgi Branch Near Kolkunda Cross Mudhol, Taluka Sedam Dist. Kalburgi, Karnataka 585318

200 Union Bank Of India

Mahantesh Nagar, Mr.A.B Govekars Bldg, 1st Flr, Anjaneya Nagar,, Ashoka Complex, Sec 10,CTC 6531-6534, ,PO, Malmaruti MM Extn.,Belgaum, Karnataka

201 Union Bank Of India Yadgir Branch Kalburgi Towers, Near New Vidhan Soudha, Chittapur Road, Yadgir, Dist Yadgir

202 Union Bank Of India

Saidapur (Yadgir) Branch Plot No.73/74, Mahaveer Colony,, Yadgir Road, SAIDAPUR, Yadgir District, KARNATAKA

Regional Office, Bengluru 203 Union Bank of India

Narasapura Branch Survey No.294/4, ground floor[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3055 Narasapur, Hobli, Kolar 563133 Karnataka

Regional Office, Coimbatore 204 Union Bank of India

Avinashi Branch 15/78 A-6 Bharthidasan Street, Kovai Main Road, Avinashi, dist.Coimbatore

205 Union Bank of India

Uthagamandalam Branch 190/4 Hadfield Road J.S.Complex, 1st floor, Hillbund Ooty Dist.Nilgiris

206 Union Bank of India

Thiruvanaikoil branch No.2 V.S.,Nagar, Chennai Trunck Road Thiruvanaikivil Dist. Tiruchirapalli -621005

207 Union Bank of India

Peelamedu branch No. 437 Avanashi Road Opp Shanti theatre, Peelamedu Coimbatore, Dist.Coimbatore -641004

Regional Office, Kozhikode 208 Union Bank of India

Chittur (Palakkad dist) Branch R K Building, Chittur Palakkad Road Chittur PO Palakkad, Kerala -678101

209 Union Bank of India

Kalpetta Branch Meenakshi Complex, Kalpetta Post Wayanad , Kerala -673121

Regional Office, Vijaywada 210 Union Bank of India

Bhavanipuram Branch flat no. 307, bhavani Towers Swathi Road, Bhavanipuram, Krishna Dist. Vijaywada Andhra Pradesh -500012

211 Union Bank of India

Krumaddali Branch Door No.4-111A Vedhapuram road Near Anjaneyaswami Temple dist. Krishna -521157

Regional Office, Ernakulam 212 Union Bank of India Edapalli Toll Branch Tol junction, NH 47 Edapally Ernakulam, Kerala -6820243056 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 213 Union Bank of India Kadamakudy Branch Madathil Parambil House Pizhala PO Cochin -682027

Regional Office, Siligudi 214 Union Bank of India

Sevak Road Branch Post Siligudi, Dist. Darjiling, West Bengal -734001

Regional Office, Kottayam 215 Union Bank of India

Regional Office, Kottayam, 3rd floor Amala Tower Adichira Junction, Thellakom PO Kottayam -686016

216 Union Bank of India

Erumeli South Branch Kallukulangara Building, Erumeli Mundakayam Road, Near Private Bus Stand, Erumeli PO Kottayam -686509

217 Union Bank of India

Thengana Branch Angilimoottil Kannavattaa Perumbanachiy PO Changanasseery Kottayam Kerala -686536

218 Union Bank of India Santhanpara Branch PKR Building Pooppara PO Udumbanchola Taluk Santhanpara Idukki, Kerla

नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1053.— राष्ट्रीय आवास बैंक अधिनियम, 1987 (1987 का 53) की धारा 6 की उप-धारा (1) के

खंड (ड.) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, के न्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री आनंद मधुकर के स्थान पर श्री

ललित कु मार चन्देल, आर्थिक सलाहकार, वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग, नई दिल्ली को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेशों

तक, राष्ट्रीय आवास बैंक के निदेशक मंडल में निदेशक के पद पर नियुक्त करती है।

[फा. सं. 24/17/2010-आईएफ-II]

नेहा चौहान, उप निदेशक[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3057

New Delhi, the 8th December, 2020

S.O. 1053.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 6 of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Lalit Kumar Chandel, Economic Advisor, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi as a Director on the Board of Directors of National Housing Bank with immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri Anand Madhukar.

[F. No. 24/17/2010-IF.II]

NEHA CHAUHAN, Dy. Director

नई दिल्ली, 9 दिसम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1054.—बीमा विनियामक और विकास प्राधिकरण अधिनियम, 1999 (1999 का 41) की धारा 4 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, के न्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री प्रमोद कु मार अरोड़ा, सचिव, (अंतर्राष्ट्रीय परिचालन), भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम, कारपोरेट कार्यालय, मुम्बई को पद का कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से आरंभ में तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा बासठ वर्ष की आयु प्राप्त करने तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, चार लाख रुपए प्रतिमाह (आवास और कार की सुविधा के बिना) के समेकित वेतन पैके ज पर भारतीय बीमा विनियामक और विकास प्राधिकरण में पूर्णकालिक निदेशक (बीमांकिकी) के पद पर नियुक्त करती है।

[फा. सं. आर-16011/02/2019-बीमा-I]

के . बी. नैय्यर, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 9th December, 2020

S.O. 1054.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 4 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 (41 of 1999), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Pramod Kumar Arora, Secretary (International Operations), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Corporate office, Mumbai as Whole-Time Member (Actuary) in the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India, on a consolidated pay package of four lakh rupees per month (without facility of house and car), initially for a period of three years, with effect from the date of assumption of charge of the post, or till attaining the age of sixty-two years, or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.

[F. No. R-16011/02/2019-Ins.I]

K. B. NAYYAR, Under Secy.

विदेश मंत्रालय

(सीपीवी डिवीजन)

नई दिल्ली, 26 नवम्बर, 2020

का.आ.1055.—के न्द्रीय राजनयिक और कोंसुलीय अधिकारी (शपथ एवं फीस) के अधिनियम, 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैधानिक आदेश ।

एतद्द्वारा, कें द्र सरकार भारत के दूतावास, कोपेनहेगन में श्री नीरज, सहायक अनुभाग अधिकारी को दिनांक 26 नवंबर 2020 से सहायक कोंसुलर अधिकारी के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के निर्वहन के लिए प्राधिकृ त करती है।

[सं. टी-4330/08/2020]

विष्णु कु मार शर्मा, निदेशक (सी.पी.वी.)3058 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 26th November, 2020

S.O. 1055.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby authorizes Shri Neeraj, Assistant Section Officer in Embassy of India, Copenhagen as Assistant Consular Officer to perform the consular services with effect from 26 November 2020.

[No.T-4330/08/2020]

VISHNU KUMAR SHARMA, Director (CPV)

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1056.—राजनयिक और कोंसुलीय अधिकारी (शपथ एवं फीस) के अधिनियम, 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैधानिक आदेश ।

एतद् द्वारा, कें द्र सरकार भारत के भारत के दूतावास, रबात में श्री अजीत कु मार, सहायक अनुभाग अधिकारी को दिनांक 27 नवंबर, 2020 से सहायक कोंसुलर अधिकारी के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के निर्वहन के लिए प्राधिकृ त करती है।

[सं. टी-4330/01/2016]

विष्णु कु मार शर्मा, निदेशक (सी.पी.वी.)

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2020

S.O. 1056.— Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Ajit Kumar, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Embassy of India, Rabat to perform the Consular services with effect from 27 November 2020.

[No.T-4330/01/2016]

VISHNU KUMAR SHARMA, Director (CPV)

कार्मिक, लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय

(कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1057. —के न्द्र सरकार, एतदद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की धारा 5 की उप-धारा (1) सपठित धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मध्य प्रदेश राज्य सरकार के गृह विभाग मंत्रालय, भोपाल की अंग्रेजी में जारी अधिसूचना, सं. एफ-12-78/2020/बी-1/दो, दिनांक 06.10.2020 के माध्यम से जारी सहमति से, मनुआभान टेकरी, कोह-ए-फ़िज़ा, भोपाल में दिनांक 30-04-2019 को एक नाबालिग लड़की के बलात्कार एवं हत्या की घटना के संबंध में कोह-ए-फ़िज़ा थाना, भोपाल (म.प्र.) में भारतीय दंड संहिता (1860 का 45) की धाराएं 363, 366, 376 डीए, 302, 201 और लैंगिक अपराधों से बालकों का संरक्षण अधिनियम, 2012 (2012 का 32) की धाराएं 5(आर) और 6 के तहत दर्ज मामला अपराध सं. 276/19 से जुड़े अपराध(धों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराधों से जुड़े या उससे संबद्ध किसी दुष्प्रयास, दुष्प्रेरणा[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3059 और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यवहार में किए गए या उन्हीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न किसी अन्य अपराध का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार समस्त मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में करती है।

[फा. सं. 228/28/2020-एवीडी-II]

संजय कु मार चौरसिया, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, 8th December, 2020

S.O. 1057.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Madhya Pradesh, vide Notification issued in English, No. F-12-78/2020/B-1/TWO dated 06-10-2020 of Home Department Mantralaya, Bhopal, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole state of Madhya Pradesh for investigation into the offence(s) relating to case Crime No. 276/19, under sections 363, 366, 376 DA, 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and sections 5(r) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012) registered at Police Station Koh-e-fiza, Bhopal (M.P.) pertaining to an incident of rape and murder of a minor girl occurred on 30-04-2019 at Manuabhan Tekri, Koh-e-fiza, Bhopal and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/28/2020-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

वाणिज्य एवं उद्योग मंत्रालय

(वाणिज्य विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 10 दिसम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1058.—के न्द्रीय सरकार, निर्यात (गुणवत्ता नियंत्रण एंव निरीक्षण) अधिनियम, 1963 (1963 का 22) की धारा 7 की उपधारा (1) के साथ पठित निर्यात (गुणवत्ता नियंत्रण एंव निरीक्षण) नियम, 1964 के नियम 12, के उपनियम (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मेसर्स एसजीएस इंडिया प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, प्लॉट नंबर 64, जीआईडीसी मेन रोड, धरमपुर, पोरबंदर, गुजरात-360577 (जिसे एतद्पश्चात उक्त अभिकरण माना जाएगा) को इस अधिसूचना के शासकीय राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए, वाणिज्य मंत्रालय की शासकीय राजपत्र में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना के साथ अनुसूची में निर्दिष्ट दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की अधिसूचना की संख्या का.आ. 3975 तथा दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की अधिसूचना सं.

का.आ. 3978 के तहत प्रकाशित अधिसूचना में उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क – समूह-I अर्थात, लौह अयस्क, बॉक्साइट और समूह-II अर्थात, ज़िंक कॉन्सट्रेट, के निर्यात से पूर्व निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन पोरबंदर पत्तन, पिपावाव पत्तन, बेदी पत्तन, ओखा पत्तन, कांडला पत्तन और मु ंदरा पत्तन में उक्त खनिज एवं अयस्क के निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता देती है, अर्थात् :

(i) यह अभिकरण, खनिज और अयस्क समूह-। के निर्यात (निरीक्षण) नियम, 1965 खनिज और अयस्क समूह-II के निर्यात (निरीक्षण) नियम, 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन निरीक्षण की पद्धति की जाँच3060 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] करने के लिये निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा निमित्त नामनिर्दिष्ट अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी; और

(ii) यह अभिकरण, इस अधिसूचना में यथा विनिर्दिष्ट अपने कार्यो का निष्पादन करने के लिए, निदेशक (निरीक्षण और गुणवत्ता नियंत्रण) निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा समय-समय पर, लिखित रूप में, दिए गए निर्देशों से आबद्ध होंगी ।

[फा. सं. के -16014/14/2020-निर्यात निरीक्षण]

दिवाकर नाथ मिसरा, संयुक्त सचिव

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE)

New Delhi, the 10th December, 2020

S.O. 1058.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/s SGS India Private Limited, Plot No. 64, GIDC Main Road, Dharampur, Porbandar, Gujarat-360577 as an agency for a period of three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette , for the inspection of Minerals & Ores, Group-I, namely, Iron Ore, Bauxite and Group-II namely, Zinc Cocentrates as specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce, published in the official Gazette vide number S.O. 3975, dated the 20th December, 1965, and S.O. 3978 dated the 20th December, 1965 respectively, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores at Porbandar Port, Pipavav Port, Bedi Port, Okha Port, Kandla Port and Mundra Port subject to the following conditions, namely: -

(i) the said agency shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in carrying out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores - Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965 and the Export of Minerals and Ores - Group II (Inspection) Rules, 1965; and

(ii) the said agency, in performance of their function as specified in this notification shall be bound by such directions, as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may give in writing from time to time.

[F. No. K-16014/14/2020-Export Inspection]

DIWAKAR NATH MISRA, Jt. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर, 2020

.—पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइनें (भूमि में प्रयोक्ता के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम,

1962 (1962 का 50), (इसके बाद इसे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 2 की उप-धारा (अ) के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार नीचे दी गयी सारणी के स्तम्भ (1) में उल्लेखित व्यक्ति को श्री वी.आई. गोहिल, सेवानिवृत्त (गु प्र से) के स्थान पर मैसर्स पाइपलाइन इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड (पीआईएल) हेतु उक्त सारणी के स्तम्भ (3) में उल्लेखित प्राकृतिक गैस पाइपलाइनों के लिए स्तम्भ (2) में उल्लेखित क्षेत्रों के संबंध में उक्त अघिनियम के तहत सक्षम प्राघिकारी के कार्यों

का निर्वहन करने के लिए एतदद्वारा प्राघिकृत करती है :-

2. यह अधिसूचना जारी होने की दिनांक से लागू होगी ।

[फा. सं. एल-14014/41/2016-जी.पी. II]

राज किशोर, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2020

S.O. 1059.—In pursuance of sub-section (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter called the said Act), the Central Government hereby authorizes the person mentioned in column (1) of the table given below to perform the functions of the Competent Authority vice Shri V. I. Gohil, Retired (GAS) under the said Act for M/s. Pipeline Infrastructure Limited (PIL) in respect of areas mentioned in column (2) for the natural gas pipelines mentioned in Colum (3) of the said Table:-

TABLE

2. This notification will be effective from the date of its issue.

[F. No. L-14014/41/2016-GP-II]

RAJ KISHORE, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 9 दिसम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1060.—कें द्रीय सरकार, तेल उद्योग (विकास) अधिनियम, 1974 (1974 का 47) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (3)(ख) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतद्द्वारा श्री राजीव रंजन, अपर सचिव, व्यय विभाग को 20.11.2020 से 20.11.2022 तक या अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, तेल उद्योग विकास बोर्ड का सदस्य नियुक्त करती है।

[फा. सं. जी-38011/41/2016-वित्त-I]

पेरिन देवी, निदेशक3062 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 9th December, 2020

S.O. 1060.—In exercise of the Powers conferred by Sub-Section (3)(b) of Section 3 of the Oil Industry (Development) Act, 1974 (47 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Additional Secretary, Department of Expenditure as a member of the Oil Industry Development Board w.e.f. 20.11.2020 to 20.11.2022 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. G-38011/41/2016-Fin.I]

PERIN DEVI, Director

विद्युत मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1061.—कें द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) के अनुसरण में विद्युत मंत्रालय के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन पावर ग्रिड कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों जिनके 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारीवृ ंद ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है:-

1. पावर ग्रिड कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड,

दक्षिणी क्षेत्र पारेषण प्रणाली-1,

765/400 के .वी. महेश्वरम जी.आई.एस. उपकें द्र,

मीरखानपेट (गॉंव), कन्दुकु र (मंडल),

रंगारेड्डी (जिला) – 501509 (तेलंगाना)

2. पावर ग्रिड कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड,

दक्षिणी क्षेत्र पारेषण प्रणाली-1,

चिलकालूरिपेट 765/400 के .वी. उपकें द्र,

अन्नवरम ग्राम, रोम्पीचेरला,

जिला – गु ंटूर (आंध्र प्रदेश) – 522617

3. पावर ग्रिड कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड,

दक्षिणी क्षेत्र पारेषण प्रणाली-1,

वरंगल 400/220 के .वी. उपकें द्र,

ओगलापुर गॉंव, धामेरा (डाक. एवं मंडल)

वरंगल ग्रामीण जिला – 506006 (तेलंगाना)

[सं. 11011/9/2017-ह ंिदी]

राज पाल, वरिष्ठ सलाहकार[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3063

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2020

S. O. 1061.— In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify the following offices of the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited under the administrative control of Ministry of Power, where 80% of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:

1. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, South Region Transmission System-1,

765/400 K.V. Maheshwaram G.I.S. Substation, Meerkhanpet (Village), Kandukur (Mandal), Rangareddy (District) – 501509 (Telangana)

2. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, South Region Transmission System-1, Chilakaluripeta 765/400 K.V. Substation, Annavaram Village, Rompicherla (Mandal), District – Guntur (Andhra Pradesh) – 522617

3. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, South Region Transmission System-1, Warangal 400/220 K.V. Substation, Oglapur Village, Damera (P.O. & Mandal), Warangal Rural District – 506006 (Telangana)

[No. 11011/9/2017-Hindi]

RAJ PAL, Sr. Adviser

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1062.— कें द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 के

नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) के अनुसरण में विद्युत मंत्रालय के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन एनएचपीसी लिमिटेड के

निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों जिनके 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारीवृ ंद ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है:-

1. एनएचपीसी लिमिटेड,

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय-सिलीगुड़ी,

विद्युत नगर, पोस्ट-सैटेलाइट टाउनशिप,

सिलीगुड़ी, जिला-जलपाईगुड़ी

(पश्चिम बंगाल)-734015

2. एनएचपीसी लिमिटेड,

चूटक पावर स्टेशन,

मिंजी, कारगिल,

लद्दाख-194103

[सं. 11011/9/2017-हिंदी]

राज पाल, वरिष्ठ सलाहकार3064 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2020

S.O. 1062.— In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify the following offices of the NHPC Limited under the administrative control of Ministry of Power, where 80% of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:

1. NHPC Limited,

Regional Office-Siligudi, Vidyutnagar, P.O.-Satellite Township, Siligudi, Distt.-Jalpaiguri (West Bengal-734015

2. NHPC Limited,

Chutak Power Station, Minji, Kargil, Ladakh-194103

[No.11011/9/2017-Hindi]

RAJ PAL, Sr. Adviser

.

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 11 नवम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1063.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में

के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स मुख्य महाप्रबंधक, दूरसंचार, बीएसएनएल, हैदराबाद और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्द्रीय सरकार

औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद -1 के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 08/2012) प्रकाशित करती है जो

के न्द्रीय सरकार को 30.08.2020 को प्राप्त हुए थे ।

[सं. एल- 42025/07/2020-आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 11th November, 2020

S.O. 1063.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 08/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court Hyderabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Chief General Manager, Telecommunications ,BSNL, Hyderabad, & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 30.08.2020.

[No. L- 42025/07/2020 IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: -Sri Muralidhar Pradhan , Presiding Officer Dated the 29th day of July, 2020

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 8/2012

Between: Sri Chinta Venkateswara Rao S/o Veerabhadraiah, R/o H.No.3-5-303/1/B, Pilli Chinnakrishna Thota, Khammam. ..….Petitioner[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3065

AND

1. The Chief General Manager, Telecommunications, BSNL, Abids, Hyderabad.

2. The Asst. General Manager (Admn.) O/o CGMT A.P. Circle, Hyderabad -1. … Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : M/s. M.V. Hanumantha Rao, K. Seetharama Rao, N. Hari Charan, A. Venu & P. Nithya Nageswari, Advocates

For the Respondent : Sri R.S. Murthy, Advocate

AWARD

Sri Ch. Venkateswara Rao who worked as Mazdoor (who will be referred to as workman) has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., seeking for declaring the proceeding No.TA/STB/20-2/REP/06-10/21 dated 27.4.2010 issued by Respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to regularize or reengage the services of the workman by granting all consequential benefits.

2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner has worked as Mazdoor (Casual labourer) in Railway Electrification Project (REP), Secunderabad to Nagpur from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996 for a period of 1004 days along with others. Thereafter, the Petitioner along with others continued on voucher payment basis for sometime and thereafter on contract basis. The Petitioner along with others have been requesting the Respondent either for regularization or to provide regular work to them. Still, no action was taken by the Respondents, even though the Petitioner has worked for a considerable period. It is stated that the Petitioner came to know that by proceeding dated 21.11.2006 similarly situated persons i.e.,79 persons have been regularized giving temporary status to them by the Respondents. In fact those persons are juniors to the Petitioner and other similarly situated persons. It is further stated that the Petitioner has come from a very poor family and have been pursuing the authorities since long time with a hope that the Department would consider his claim in a positive manner. But inspite of the request of the Petitioner no action was taken by the Respondents. Thereafter, the Petitioner along with others approached the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Hyderabad by filing OA Nos.100/10 and 101/10 and after hearing both the parties the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal disposed of both the OAs on 10.2.2010 giving the following direction to the Respondent "since the applicants in the OA also have similar claims as the applicants in the AP No.12872/08, I consider it appropriate to dispose of this Original Application by giving a direction to the applicants to file individual representation to the Respondents giving full details namely, their addresses, places at which they were engaged, the period for which they were engaged etc., within a period of 4 weeks and on receipt of such representations, the Respondents, shall examine their applications with reference to the records and the scheme that was in force and pass orders within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of such representation." It is further submitted that as per the orders of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, the Petitioner and others submitted elaborate representations to Respondent No.1 along with the copy of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal and also the attendance book etc., on 3.3.2010. But the Respondents instead of appreciating the circumstances and without proper verification of records and without providing opportunity of being heard, have issued the impugned letter dated 27.4.2010, directing the Petitioner and others not to do any further correspondence with the Respondents. It is stated that the proceeding dated 27.4.2010 are ex facie illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the record and violative of the principles of natural justice and violative of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is further stated that similarly situated persons were regularized, therefore, the Respondents ought to have extended the same benefit to the Petitioner also. It is also stated that the Respondents have extracted work from the Petitioners during subsequent period and denial of the said benefit amounts to clear act of discrimination. It is stated that the Petitioner along with similarly situated persons sought either for temporary status or for reengagement. But the Respondents did not pay any heed to it either to give temporary status or to give reengagement to the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the matter pertaining to the livelihood of the Petitioner who hails from the poor family and the Respondents ought to have acted as a model employer by considering his case in a positive manner instead of rejecting the claim without any cogent reasons. It is submitted that the Petitioner is having record and also the Department had considered similarly situated persons and as such the Petitioner is entitled to get the appropriate relief. It is also stated that the impugned order of Respondents No.2, is not only illegal, but also contrary to3066 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the earlier directions issued by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal. The Petitioner along with others has filed their concerned books wherein the particulars of days worked by them and the number of days worked in every month are duly certified by the officer of that time. They have also submitted the copies of the IDs issued by the Respondents' authorities. It is further stated that despite furnishing all the above information, the Respondents' authorities have not considered the request of the Petitioner and other similarly situated persons for their regularization on par with similarly situated persons as done in other cases i.e., in the proceedings dated 21.11.2000, and as such the inaction on the part of the Respondents is clearly discriminatory. The Petitioner stated that the days book submitted by him clearly indicates about all the information of the Petitioner with regard to his work i.e., MRPTS work, cable work or alignment store work etc.. It is also submitted that the Petitioner was paid Rs.60/- per day. But inspite of the above information submitted by the Petitioner his case has not been considered by the Respondents. Therefore, finding no other way the Petitioner is compelled to take shelter in this Tribunal seeking the relief mentioned above.

3. The Respondents filed counter with averments in brief as follows:

The Respondents' management filed counter denying the facts averred in the claim statement. In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the facts made in the claim statement have also challenged the maintainability of the petition. It is specifically stated that the Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking relief of reinstatement and regularization as a casual labour in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., and to set aside communication No.TA/STB/20-2/REP/6-10/22 dated 27.4.2010, which is not maintainable in view of the amendment made in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Petitioner has wrongly impleaded the Union of India as a party in this case. The Petitioner was not working under the Respondents, and he was working under the contractor. There is no employer and employee relationship between the Respondents and the Petitioner. It is submitted that there is no engagement of casual labour in BSNL, after 1.10.2000 and the casual labour who have been engaged as such before imposition of the ban, order vide letter No. 270/6/84-STN, New Delhi dated 30.3.1985 and letter No.270-6/84-STN dated 22.6.1988 for the project circles and the line dismantling in the Electrification Project circles have been continued in BSNL, as a matter of policy and the Petitioner having been engaged in Railway Electrification Project after imposition of the ban in project circles vide letter dated 22.6.1988 is not covered by the policy thereof, and it is not open for the Petitioner to assert for reengagement or regularization under the said policy. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is confusing this Tribunal with regard to letter No.TA/STB/20-2/rep/06-10/22 dated 27.4.2010 pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal dated 10.2.2010 in OA No.100/2010 filed in continuation of WP No.12872/2008 in the Hon'ble High Court seeking for identical relief and the communication dated 27.4.2010 was based on the directions dated 10.2.2010 in OA No.100/2010 to comply with a judicial order notwithstanding the fact that the said OA No.100/2010 is misconceived and not maintainable having regard to the definition of employee in Rule 3(8) of BSNL & CDA Rules 2006 implemented as such from 10.10.2006. It is clearly submitted that REP for line dismantling is distinct and different and the said projects is outside the jurisdiction of the answering Respondents thereby leaving no scope to reengage any casual labour engaged by the said projects organization after imposition of the ban order and disengaging thereafter and entrustment of the work to a contractor thereby leaving no scope for reengagement and regularization as per the settled law. It is submitted that the documents relied on by the Petitioner do not form part of the records of the answering Respondents without any letters of engagement and payment particulars while the maintenance of records is not the administrative concern of the answering Respondents, and no records as such are maintained by the Respondents after the expiry of three years relating to musterroll as per the retention schedule, and with the above averments, the Respondents submitted for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. During the course of hearing of this case, workman Sri Chinta Venkateswarlu is examined himself as WW1 and also relied on 13 documents which are marked as Ex.W1 to W13, whereas the Respondents have neither examined any witnesses nor even cross examined WW1, even after taking several opportunities.

5. As per the averments made in the pleadings of the parties, the following points are to be

determined:

I. Whether Lr. No.TA/STB/20-2/REP/06-10/22 dated 27.4.2010 is required to be set aside and the Petitioner along with others is liable to be reinstated into service?

II. Whether the Respondents are required to reengage the Petitioner along with others and whether the Petitioner is entitled to be regularized by granting all consequential reliefs as prayed for?

6. I have already heard the Learned Counsels for both the sides and perused the evidence adduced from the side of the Petitioner.

7. Point No.I: The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the Respondents engaged the Petitioner and others for REP for lying cable lines through out the railway track. In that process[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3067 the Petitioner along with others worked as a mazdoor (casual labourers) in the Railway Electrification Project from Secunderabad to Nagpur from 1.1.1994 to 30.9.1996 for a period of 1004 days along with others continuously. During that time Sri V.H.R.K.Vittal Rao, was the Divisional Engineer, Telecom (Railway Electrification Project) Secunderabad, and was making payment to the Petitioner. He also used to sign on the day book every month. The Assistant Engineer (Telecom) Railway Electrification Project, Secunderabad used to provide work to the Petitioner and others and issued identity card to the Petitioner and others. He contended that the nature of work and the number of working days clearly mentioned in the day book issued by the authorities, which is the proof to show that the Petitioner and others were engaged and worked, for the Respondents. He further contended that, the Petitioner along with others continuously worked under the Respondents for which they were paid on voucher for some time and thereafter on contract basis. It is further argued that the Petitioner along with others have been requesting the Respondents either for regularization of their services or to provide regular work to them though, but even though they have given assurance, but no action has been taken by the Department. Even though the Petitioner worked for a considerable period in the Department, but his services were not regularized. He also contended that the Petitioner and others came to know that by proceeding dated 21.11.2000 similarly situated persons of 79 persons have been regularized by giving them temporary status by the Respondents, in fact, those persons are juniors to the Petitioner. He contended that the Petitioner hails from a poor family and he has been pursuing the authorities since long time with a hope that the Department would consider his claim in a positive manner. It is also contended that as no action was taken by the Respondents, the Petitioner along with others filed WP No.12872/08 before the Hon'ble High Court and thereafter, approached the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal Bench at Hyderabad by filing OA Nos.100/10 and 101/10, and after hearing both the parties the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal disposed of the OAs, on 10.2.2010 directing the Respondents to consider the grievances of the Petitioner and others within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation. In obedience to the order of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, the Petitioner moved the Respondents by filing an elaborate representation on 3.3.2010. But the Respondents vide their order dated 27.4.2010 rejected the representations of the Petitioner and others which is illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the matter pertaining to the livelihood of the Petitioner as he hails from a poor family, the Respondents ought to have acted as a model employer by considering the case of the Petitioner instead of rejecting the representation of the Petitioner.

8. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that the case is not maintainable as the Petitioner was not their worker. He was working under a contractor. There is no employer and employee relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondents. There is no engagement of casual labourers in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., after 1.10.2000 and the casual labour who have been engaged as such before imposition of the ban order and completion of the projects are only the casual labourers and they are being continued in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., as a matter of policy, and the Petitioner having been engaged in the BSNL Railway Electrification Project after imposition of ban in project circles vide letter dated 22.6.1988 is not covered by the policy thereof and it is not open for the Petitioner to assert for reengagement or regularization under the said policy. The Petitioner is confusing this Tribunal with regard to letter No.TA/STB/20-2/rep/06-10/22 dated 27.4.2010 pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal dated 10.2.2010 given in OA No.100/2010 filed in continuation of WP No.12872/2008 in the Hon'ble High Court seeking for identical relief and the communication dated 27.4.2010 was based on the directions dated 10.2.2010 given in OA No.100/2010 to comply with a judicial order notwithstanding the fact that the said OA No.100/2010 is misconceived and not maintainable having regard to the definition of employee contained in Rule 3(8) of BSNL & CDA Rules 2006 implemented as such from 10.10.2006. It is further argued that REP for line dismantling is distinct and different and the said projects is outside the jurisdiction of the answering Respondents thereby leaving no scope to reengage any casual labour engaged by the said projects organization after imposition of the ban order and disengaging thereafter and entrustment of the work to a contractor thereby leaving no scope for reengagement and regularization as per the settled law. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Respondents that the documents relied on by the Petitioner do not form part of the records of the answering Respondents without any letters of engagement and payment particulars while the maintenance of records is not the administrative concern of the answering Respondents, and no records as such are maintained by the Respondents after expiry of three years relating to muster roll as per the retention schedule, and with these submissions, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted for dismissal of the claim petition.

9. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further contended that only to deprive the Petitioner workman from his legitimate right the Respondents have taken a stand that they have not utilized the services of the Petitioner directly and the Petitioner was working under a contractor with whom the Respondents have made an agreement. He also contended that the Respondents have exploited the poor Petitioner. He also contended that such type of labour exploitation should be prohibited. In support of this contention he relied on a decision of the Apex Court reported in (2011)15 decided in the case of Bhilwara Dugdh Utpdak Sahakari Samiti Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar Sharma, dead by LRs and others in Civil Appeal No.2585 of 2006 209 (S.C.) wherein their3068 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Lordships held that "Labour statutes were meant to protect the employees/workmen because it was realised that the employers and the employees are not on an equal bargaining position. Hence, protection of employees was required so that they may not be exploited. However, this new technique of subterfuge has been adopted by some employers in recent years in order to deny the rights of the workmen under various labour statutes by showing that the workmen concerned are not their employees but are the employees/workmen of a contractor, or that they are merely daily-wage or short-term or casual employees when in fact they are doing the work of regular employees. This court cannot countenance such practices any more. Globalization/liberalization in the name of growth cannot be at the human cost of exploitation of workers." He also contended that in order to avoid the legitimate right of the Petitioner the Respondents have stayed various commissions which is not at all acceptable from a huge organization like the Respondents.

10. On consideration of the rival contentions of both the sides it is seen that the Petitioner was working under the Respondents for a period of more than three years. The Respondents have also engaged the services of the Petitioner in different fields. But no letter of engagement had been given in favour of the Petitioner. The Respondents have taken a plea that the Petitioner was working under a contractor to whom they have engaged for their work. The Respondents have exploited the services of the Petitioner by engaging him through contractors. The Petitioner after disengagement and denial of regularly engaging him in any work, he has moved the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal who had also directed the Respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner. But the Respondents in a very casual manner considered the representation of the Petitioner and rejected his representation without any reasonable grounds. The Respondents have also taken a plea that the documents relating to the work of the Petitioner is not available with them and it is not their duty to keep in custody and it is the duty of the administrative Department of the Respondents' organization. Taking such type of plea the Respondents can not be escaped from the liability when the administrative Department is under the control of their organization. The Respondents should have called for the documents of the Petitioner and passed a reasonable order while rejecting the representation of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is also relied on 13 documents showing that he had worked under the Respondents and the officers of the Respondents' organization have recognized him as a mazdoor which clearly shows that without any malafide intention the Petitioner has moved for the courts to get the relief. He has not prayed for regularization of his service, but only to reengage him as a casual labourer. The Respondents would have engaged the Petitioner as a casual labourer when they have already regularized the services of some similarly situated employees. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the prayer of the Petitioner is genuine and the order passed by the Respondents rejecting the representation of the Petitioner dated 27.4.2010 in a casual manner is liable to be set aside and the said impugned order dated 27.4.2010 is also hereby set aside.

Thus Point No.I is answered accordingly.

11. Point No.II: In view of the findings given in Point No.I, it is seen that the Petitioner was working as a mazdoor/casual labourer under the Respondents for a period of three years i.e., for 1004 days, he has not produced any letter of engagement. Only he wants to be a casual labour under the Respondents. The Petitioner is only entitled to be engaged as a mazdoor/casual labour under the Respondents and is not entitled to get any other relief as prayed for.

Thus, Point No.II is answered accordingly.

ORDER

In view of the findings given in Point Nos.I and II, it is hereby ordered: The case of the Petitioner is allowed in part. The Respondents are directed to engage the Petitioner as a casual labour at the time of their need, if they fail to engage the Petitioner as a casual labourer, they are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- (Fifty thousand) to the Petitioner towards compensation. This order be complied within four months from the date of receipt of notification, failing which the Petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps according to Law.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 29th day of July, 2020.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3069

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent

WW1: Sri Chinta Venkateswara Rao NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1: Photostat copy of order dt.27.4.2010 issued by the Respondent No.2

Ex.W2: Photostat copy of representation dt.3.3.2010 by WW2

Ex.W3: Photostat copy of order in OA No.1229/2011 by Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal Ex.W4: Photostat copy of order in OA No.100/2010 by Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal Ex.W5: Photostat copy of order in OA No.101/2010 by Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal Ex.W6: Photostat copy oflr.dt.9.5.2007 issued by Divisional Officer, BSNL, (RE)(TP) Secunderabad Ex.W7: Photostat copy of Lr. of Director, BSNL, REP, Secunderabad dt.12.9.2002

Ex.W8: Photostat copy of list of candidates issued by Div. Engineer, Secunderabad dt.11.9.2002 Ex.W9: Photostat copy of lr.dt.13.11.2007 providing information under RTI Act along with list issued by Respondent No.2

Ex.W10: Photostat copy of lr.dt.21.11.2000 with regard to temporary status

Ex.W11: Photostat copy of days book signed by Authority; Divisional Engineer

Ex.W12: Photostat copy of identity card of Petitioner issued by Asst. Engineer Telecom

Ex.W13: Photostat copy of order passed in WP No.12872/2008

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 4 दिसम्बर, 2020

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बडौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 30/2016) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04.12.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/69/2016-आई आर (बी-II]

सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 4th December, 2020

S.O. 1064.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.12.2020.

[No. L-12012/69/2016-IR(B-II)

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer3070 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 30/2016

Employer in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda, Gamharia Branch

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For Employer : Sri R.R. Prasad, Advocate.

For workman : Sri R.R. Ram, Advocate.

State : Jharkhand. Industry:- Banking

Dated 31.08./2020

AWARD

By Order No. L-12012/69/2016-IR(B-II)) dated 28.09.2016, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda, Gamharia Branch in alleged illegal

termination of Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh is legal, justified and proper? If not, What relief he is

entitled to?"

2. After receipt of the reference, both the parties were noticed. The concerned workman Dinesh Kumar Singh has filed his written statement of claim on 02/01/2017 and the management Bank of Baroda, Gamharia Branch through its Regional Manager Bank of Baroda, Jamshedpur has filed his written statement on 20/04/2017.

The workman Dinesh Kumar Singh has filed rejoinder to the written statement of the management on 02/06/2017.

3. The claim of concerned workman namely Dinesh Kumar Singh as per his written statement is as follows:-

That he had been working at Gamharia Branch of Bank of Baroda with effect from 05/02/2007 from the very date of inception of this Branch of Bank of Baroda as a Cleaning Mazdoor cum peon. The Branch had made local advertisement for employment of a person for the said job and he was holder of the employment exchange card, so he was taken in employment after selecting him from a group of persons and said employment card was taken by the Bank. Subsequently Dy. General Manager of the Bank of Baroda had directed all the Branch Managers of the Bank of State of Jharkhand to issue advertisement to all such persons who were working in their respective Branches as part time cleaning mazdoor/full time cleaning mazdoor cum peon to apply for such post vide letter dated 22/25-10-2012. After that he had applied for the said post in a prescribed pro-forma but he had not got any information about the action taken on his application. Thereafter the management had stopped him from working in the branch with effect from 13/02/2015 without any charge- sheet, notice, notice pay or compensation in utter violation of section 25 F of Industrial Dispute Act and engaged a new man on this post in violation of section 25 H of I.D. Act. He was working continuously without break in the said branch of the management since 05/02/2007 and he had been in continuous service for more than 240 days in a year before termination of his service. The Branch Manager Sri Pankaj Srivastava informed him that since he was not the employee of the Bank, so there was no question of his removing from service and thereafter he had submitted several representation for his regularisation, payment of wages and reinstatement but the same was not accepted. After that he raised an Industrial Dispute before the competent authority and subsequently the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal.

A prayer has been made to hold the action of management in terminating his service as illegal, unjustified and improper.

4. The case of management of Bank of Baroda, Gamharia Branch through its Regional Manager Bank of Baroda Bistupur Jamshedpur is as follows:-

That the present reference case is neither maintainable in law nor in fact. The concerned workman had submitted the statement of claim after lapse of sixty days and he had to file the same within 15 days from the date of receipt of notification, so this reference case is not maintainable. The Gamharia Branch of Bank of Baroda had engaged concerned workman namely Dinesh Kumar Singh for sweeping and cleaning purpose purely on casual/temporary basis intermittently on day to day basis and his engagement started in the morning and ended with the completion of work for which he was engaged. The concerned workman had never been appointed in the Bank by the competent authority as per the prescribed procedure and there is no relation of employer and employee between the management and the concerned workman. The concerned workman is not at all workman as per section 2(s) of Industrial Dispute Act and the appointment of Sub-Staff in Bank is governed by statutory rules and guidelines. The Bank has laid down eligibility criteria for appointment in Sub-Staff cadre which has specified minimum and maximum age limit, educational qualification etc. In terms of the directions issued by the Central Government, employment of persons in Sub Staff cadre would be done through employment exchange as also by advertisement for the post in the area where the vacancies are declared but the concerned workman namely Dinesh Kumar Singh had never been sponsored by the employment exchange and on this ground his claim is not maintainable. The concerned workman was engaged purely on temporary basis as a stop gap arrangement without following the laid down procedure, so his case doesn't fall in the ambit of definition of Industrial Dispute Act. The concerned workman was never terminated from service as he was never appointed by the Bank. The concerned workman was not at any point of time an employee of the Bank and he was engaged for part of the day purely on casual/temporary basis for sweeping and cleaning purposes. The concerned workman had neither been engaged nor worked continuously in Bank for 240 days in a calendar year, so his claim is not maintainable.

A prayer has been made to hold the action of management as legal and justified and dismiss the claim of workman.

5. The concerned workman has submitted the rejoinder to the written statement of the management in which he has denied the averments made in the written statement of the management.

6. The concerned workman has examined only one witness. He is himself WW-1, Dinesh Kumar Singh.

7. The WW-1, Dinesh Kumar Singh has deposed before the Tribunal that he had been appointed by Gamharia Branch of Bank of Baroda on 05/02/2007 and he had been terminated from service by verbal order on 13/02/2015. He has also deposed that he had been working in the said Branch Office since 05/02/2007 as a Cleaning Mazdoor- Cum- Peon and he had been paid wages as per Minimum Wages Act through vouchers on weekly basis. He has also stated that he had worked continuously without any interruption and break with entire satisfaction of management for 8 years from 05/02/2007 to 13/02/2015 and on 13/02/2015 he was terminated from service without any notice/compensation. He has also deposed that the provision of section 25(F) of I.D. Act had not been complied with as he had worked for 240 days in a year. He has also stated that he has applied for regularization for his service in a specified pro-forma in the year 2012, but he didn't get any information on his application. He has also deposed that he had submitted his application for Conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner but the matter was not settled. He has also deposed that he is entitled to be reinstated and to be regularised as a full time Cleaning Mazdoor with full back wages as per prevailing rate of pay in the Bank.

In the cross-examination he has deposed that the Branch Manager had issued appointment letter to him and the same had been filed by him in this case. He has also deposed that his date of birth is 1967 and his case was referred for regularization but the same was regretted. He has denied that in the year 2012 he was 45 years old, so he was not eligible for appointment. He has also deposed that he don't have any matriculation certificate though he had passed it in the year 1984. He had denied the suggestion that he had not worked for 240 days in a calendar year.

8. The concerned workman has proved the following documents which are marked as:-

Exhibit W-1- Photo Copy of letter number Gamhar/06/70 dated 21.9.12 of Senior Branch Manager addressed to Dy. General Manager Bank of Baroda, Jamshedpur.

Exhibit W-2- Photo copy of General circular letter dated 22/25-10-12 issued by Regional Office of Bank of Baroda, Jamshedpur.

Exhibit W-3- Photo Copy of letter dated 17/08/2015 of Regional Office Bank of Baroda, Jamshedpur addressed to concerned workman.

Exhibit W-4- Photo Copy of representation dated 24/02/2015 of concerned workman addressed to DGM Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Jamshedpur for regularisation of his service.

Exhibit W-5- Photo Copy of representation dated 17/07/2015 of concerned workman addressed to DGM, Regional Office Bank of Baroda, Jamshedpur for his regularisation.

Exhibit W-6- Photo Copy of representation dated 12/02/2015 of concerned workman addressed to DGM, Regional Office Bank of Baroda, Jamshedpur for his regularisation.

Exhibit W-7- Photo Copy of letter dated 25/08/2015 of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chaibasa to the concerned workman and Regional Manager Bank of Baroda, Jamshedpur.

Exhibit W-8- Photo Copy of reply of management of Bank of Baroda to Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chaibasa.

Exhibit W-9- Photo Copy of reply of concerned workman to Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chaibasa.

Exhibit W-10- Photo Copy of representation of concerned workman to the Branch Manager regarding housing loan.

Exhibit W-11 series- Photo Copy of Pass Book of concerned workman for the period from 01/07/2010 to 17/04/2017.

Exhibit W-12- Photo Copy of Voter Identity Card of concerned workman.

9. The management has examined two witnessess. They are MW-1, Raj Kamal and MW-2, Kundan Rajak.

10. The MW-1, Raj Kamal has deposed that he was working as Senior Branch Manager at Gamharia Branch in Bank of Baroda and the concerned workman Dinesh Kumar Singh was never appointed by any competent authority in the Bank. He has produced the copy of guidelines issued by the Bank of Baroda which has been marked as Exhibit M-1. He has also deposed that as per guidelines for appointment as a person of sub staff, the eligibilities are maximum age 26 years on the date of appointment and class Xth pass educational qualification. He has deposed that the concerned workman was engaged as casual labour on day to day basis and he was never appointed in the Bank by any competent authority. He has produced the photo copy of Aadhar Card and Election Identity Card of the concerned workman in which his date of birth has been mentioned as 1967. He has proved the Voter I-Card and Aadhaar card of the concerned workman and both the documents are marked as Exhibit M-2 and Exhibit M-3 repectively. He has further deposed that the engagement of casual labour is made on daily basis in contingency and is paid for that day only for number of days engaged in a month.

In the cross-examination he has deposed that he was working at Gamharia Branch of Bank of Baroda since 01/06/2017 and he has no knowledge when the concerned workman was discharged from service. He has further stated that there is no record available in Bank regarding appointment of concerned workman. He has also deposed that he has knowledge that on earlier occasion the concerned workman was engaged for cleaning purposes and he was not paid wages on monthly basis whereas he was paid his wages on daily basis in cash. He has also deposed that he has no knowledge whether the concerned workman was discharged from service on 13/02/2015 or not and he has no knowledge regarding serving of notice or holding enquiry in this matter. He has further deposed that no record is available regarding continuous service of concerned workman since 05/02/2007 to 13/02/2015 as cleaning peon in the Bank.

11. The MW-2, Kundan Rajak Spl. Assistant in Bank of Baroda, Kharsama, Jamshedpur has deposed that he was posted at Gamharia Branch of Bank of Baroda since 2007 to 2019 and at that time the concerned workman Dinesh Kumar Singh was working as clearing Mazdoor in the said Branch for work as per requirement. He has also stated that the concerned workman was never appointed on casual basis by the competent person and his remuneration was paid as per his work. He has also stated that the concerned workman had never worked for more than 240 days in a year.

In the cross-examination he has deposed that he was not posted in Mango Branch on 05/02/2007. He has further deposed that he has no knowledge that concerned workman was appointed on casual basis by the Bank. He has further deposed that the concerned workman was paid for his work by voucher and he used to prepare such vouchers for payment whereas attendance of the concerned workman was not marked on the attendance register. He has denied the suggestion that the concerned workman was retrenched from service on 13/02/2015 without any information.

12. The management has proved the following documents in support of this case which are marked as:-

Exhibit M-1- Photo Copy of letter of Zonal Regional Authorities dated 05 Oct. 2016 regarding guidelines of recruitment of Substaff.

Exhibit M-2- Photo Copy of Aadhaar Card of concerned workman.

Exhibit M-3- Photo Copy of Voter ID Card of concerned workman.

13. The learned lawyer of the concerned workman has submitted before Tribunal that the concerned workman Dinesh Kumar Singh was appointed by the Branch Manager Bank of Baroda Gamharia on 05/02/2007 for working as cleaning mazdoor as well as peon and since that date the concerned workman had been working in the Bank regularly. He has further argued that concerned workman had completed his attendance for more than 240 days in each and every calendar year but the management had verbally terminated him from service with effect from 13/02/2015 without any show-Cause notice/charge-sheet, so the management had violated the provision of 25F and 25 H of the I.D. Act. He has also submitted that the concerned workman was paid his wages through vouchers and this fact has been admitted by MW-1 and MW-2 in their evidence but the management has not produced those vouchers before the Tribunal after calling for those documents by the Tribunal, so adverse inference can be drawn. He has also submitted that concerned workman had applied for his regularisation in the year 2012 but no decision was taken by the Bank management. He has also argued that the concerned workman had taken loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the said Bank as a staff of the said Bank. He has relied on the decision of Rajasthan High Court passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 5551 of 2016 and Civil Writ Petition No. 125 of 2006.

14. On the other hand the learned lawyer of management has submitted that the concerned workman is not at all workman as per definition of 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act and there is no employer-employee relationship between the concerned workman and the management. He has also submitted that the concerned workman was appointed on daily basis for sweeping and clearing purposes on casual and temporary basis on day to day basis. He has also argued that the concerned workman had not been terminated from the service as he has never been an employee of the Bank. He has further submitted that the concerned workman has not produced any appointment letter and termination letter showing that he had been an employee of the Bank, so there is no question of his termination from Bank. He has also submitted that this reference case is not maintainable. He has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in SCC 2006 (L& S) 753, and SCC 2007 (6) 7, SCC 2014 (13) 232, 2016 (1) JLJR and decision of Hon'ble Jharkhand passed in case of Bipin Kumar Verma Vs. UCO Bank, Dhanbad -LPA No-268/2012.

FINDINGS

15. It is the claim of the concerned workman namely Dinesh Kumar Singh that he had been working at Gamharia Branch of Bank of Baroda w.e.f. 05/02/2007 as a Cleaning Mazdoor -cum –Peon but his services was terminated on 13/02/2015 without giving any so cause or compensation to him. It is the further claim of the concerned workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in twelve calendar months before his termination of service.

16. On the other hand this is the case of the management of Bank of Baroda that the concerned workman had never been appointed as sub staff in Gamharia Branch of Bank of Baroda but he had been engaged for sweeping work as daily wager. It is further case of the management that the concerned workman had never worked continuously in Bank for 240 days in twelve calendar months, so his claim is not maintainable.

17. Now, in the light of the pleading of both the parties the Tribunal will examine oral and documentary evidence available on the record.

18. The most competent witness in this case is WW-1, Dinesh Kumar Singh. He has deposed before the Tribunal that he had been appointed by Gamharia Branch of Bank of Baroda on 05/02/2007 and his service had been terminated by verbal order on 13/02/2015. He had also deposed that he had been working in the Branch since 05/02/2007 as Cleaning Mazdoo-cum-Peon and he had been paid wages as per Minimum Wages Act through vouchers on weekly basis. He has also deposed that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year but his service was terminated without complying the provision of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, so he is entitled for reinstatement and regularisation of his service. In the cross-examination he has deposed that the management had given appointment letter to him and the same had been filed. He has also stated that his date of birth is 1967 and his case was referred for regularisation but the same was regretted. He has denied the suggestion that in the year 2012 he was 45 years old, so he had not been eligible for appointment.

The MW-1, Raj kamal who was Senior Branch Manager of Gamharia Branch in Bank of Baroda as deposed that the concerned workman namely Dinesh Kumar Singh was never appointed by any competent authority in the Bank. He has also deposed that the maximum age for appointment of any person as sub staff is 26 years and the educational qualification is matriculation. He has also stated that as per Aadhaar Card and Election Identity Card the date of birth of concerned workman was 1967. He has also stated that the concerned workman was engaged as casual labour on day to day basis and he was never appointed as peon. In the cross-3074 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] examination he has stated that he has no knowledge of the discharge of the concerned workman and no record is available in the Bank regarding his appointment.

The MW-2, Kundan Rajak, who is Special Assistant in Bank of Baroda, Jamshedpur, has stated that he was posted at Gamharia Branch of Bank of Baroda from 2007 to 2019 and at that time concerned workman was working as a Clearing Mazdoor in the Branch but he was never appointed by the competent authority and he had been paid his remuneration as per his work. He has also deposed that the concerned workman had never worked for 240 days in a year. In the cross-examination he has stated that he has no knowledge that the concerned workman was appointed on casual basis by the Bank. He has further deposed that the concerned workman was paid for his work by voucher and he used to prepare such vouchers for payment whereas attendance of the concerned workman was not marked on the attendance register. He has further deposed that the attendance of concerned workman was not marked on evidence register.

19. Now, coming to the documentary evidence of workman it appears that Exhibit W-1 is a photo copy of letter dated 21/09/2012 issued by Branch Manager to the Dy. General Manager, Bank of Baroda , Jamshedpur in which it is mentioned that one person namely Dinesh Kumar Singh is engaged for purpose on casual basis since inception of Gamharia branch and payment to Dinesh Kumar Singh is made on weekly basis. Further Exhibit W-2 is a general circular letter issued by Dy. General Manager, Bank of Baroda on 22/25-10-12 regarding guidelines for appointment of ex-employee-cum-sweeper. Further Exhibit W-3 is a letter issued by Assistant General Manager, Bank of Baroda to the concerned workman Dinesh Kumar Singh informing him that he was not an employee of Bank, so there is no question of his termination from service. Exhibit W-4, Exhibit W-5 and Exhibit W-6 are the representation of concerned workman to the Dy. General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Jamshedpur for regularisation of his service in Bank. Moreover Exhibit W-7 is a notice of Assistant Labour Commissioner to the management of Bank and concerned workman. Exhibit W-8 and Exhibit W-9 are the reply of management and the concerned workman respectively to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Government of India, Chaibasa. Further Exhibit W-10 is the information given by concerned workman regarding settlement of his loan. Exhibit W-11 is the copy of pass book of concerned workman and Exhibit W-12 is the identity card of workman issued by Election Commission of India in which his date of birth has been mentioned as 39 years on 01/01/2006.

20. The documentary evidence of management shows that the Exhibit M-1 is the detail guidelines for appointment of staff of Bank of Baroda. Exhibit M-2 is the photo copy of Aadhaar Card of concerned workman in which his date of birth has been mentioned as 1967 and Exhibit M-3 is the Identity Card of Election Commission of India of the concerned workman in which his date of birth is mentioned as 39 years on 01/01/2006.

21. Now, after analysing the oral evidence of WW-1 Dinesh Kumar Singh available on the record it appears that the concerned workman had been engaged in the Gamharia Branch of Bank of Baroda on casual/daily basis for cleaning purposes since 05/02/2007. Further this fact has been corroborated by Exhibit W- 1 a letter issued by Senior Branch Manager on 21/09/2012 in which it is mentioned that Dinesh Kumar Singh was engaged for the purpose on casual basis since inception of Gamharia Branch and payment was being made to him on weekly basis. Moreover the MW-1 and MW-2 in their cross-examination have admitted that the concerned workman had been engaged for cleaning purpose in the Bank and was paid his remuneration. The Exhibit W-4, Exhibit W-5 and Exhibit W-6 show that the concerned workman had been removed from the service on 13/02/2015.

20. It is relevant to mention here that on the prayer of concerned workman the payment vouchers and the attendance register of the Bank for the period 2007 to 2015 had been called for but the same were not produced on the ground that payment vouchers are not available and the name of concerned workman had not been mentioned in the attendance register for the period 2007 to 2015,

21. It is required to mention here that the MW-2 in its cross-examination has categorically admitted that the concerned workman was paid for his work by vouchers and he used to prepare such vouchers for payment. Since it is an admission by the management that payment was made to the concerned workman by vouchers but the same were not produced before the Tribunal so adverse inference is drawn.

22. In view of the above discussion the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the concerned workman namely Dinesh Kumar Singh had been working in Gamharia Branch of Bank of Baroda since 05/02/2007 till he was terminated from service on 13/02/2015.

23. It is important to mention here that the workman has been defined u/s 2(s) of Industrial Dispute Act. The Section 2(s) of I.D. Act reads as follows:-

"workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-

(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a person, or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or

(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding ( ten thousand rupees) per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature

24. At this stage it is relevant to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case as reported in 2011 LAB. I. C. 2799 (S.C) has been pleased to observe as follows:-

"14. It is apposite to observe that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full-time and part-time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only a person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole-time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part-time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman.

15. Whenever an employer challenges the maintainability ground that the employee is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act, what the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is required to consider is whether the person is employed in an industry for hire or reward for doing manual, unskilled, skilled, operational, technical or clerical work in an industry. Once the test of employment for hire or reward for doing the specified type of work is satisfied, the employee would fall within the definition of 'workman".

25. It is required to mentioned here that the concerned workman namely Dinesh Kumar Singh had worked in the Gamharia Branch of Bank of Baroda on casual basis as Cleaning Mazdoor cum peon since 05/02/2007 and he was paid his remuneration on weekly basis as per Minimum Wages Act, so he was employed in the Gamharia Branch of Bank of Baroda on hire and consequently he was a workman of the Gamharia Branch of Bank of Baroda so, there was a relationship between him and the management as employer and employee. Hence there is an Industrial Dispute.

26. It is also relevant to mention here that the word retrenchment has been defined u/s 2(oo) of the I .D .Act, definition of continuous service has been mentioned u/s 25-B of I . D .Act and the condition precedent to retrenchment have been mentioned u/S 25 F of I.D Act.

Section 2(oo) of the I.D.Act reads as follows:-

Section 2(oo) -"retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include-

(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

(bb) Termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or

(c ) Termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health.

The Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act reads as follows:-

25-F Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen- No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-3076 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(a) The workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment

and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for

the period of the notice:

(b) The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to

fifteen days' average pay (for Every completed year of continuous service) or any part thereof in

excess of six months; and

(c) Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government (or such authority as may

be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.)

At this stage it is required to mentioned here that the word continuous service has been define under Section 25-B of the I.D. Act. The Section 25-B of I.D. Act reads as follows:-

25-B. Definition of continuous service – For the purpose of this Chapter,-

(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;

(2) Where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-

(a) for a period one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than –

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

(b) …………………………………..

27. Now in this case there is categorical evidence that the concerned workman namely Dinesh Kumar Singh had worked in Gamharia Branch of Bank of Baroda since 05/02/2007 to 13/02/2015 on casual basis as cleaning mazdoor cum peon and in this regard a letter had been issued by Senior Branch Manager on 21/09/2012 (Exhibit W-1), so it appears that he had worked in the Bank for 240 days in a calendar year.

28. In view of such fact the concerned workman was in continuous service in the Gamharia Branch of Bank of Baroda as per definition mentioned u/s 25-B of I.D' Act. Moreover there is also evidence that the concerned workman was removed from his service w.e.f. 13/02/2015. Further there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the concerned workman had been given one month notice in writing indicating the reasons for his retrenchment/ removal or had been paid compensation equivalent to 15 days of average pay as per provision of 25-F of the I.D. Act.

29. Hence, in view of above the discussion the Tribunal holds that the concerned workman namely Dinesh Kumar Singh had worked in Gamharia Branch of Bank of Baroda since 05/02/2007 as a Cleaning Mazdoor Cum Peon and he had been removed from service w.e.f. 13/02/2015 without complying the provisions of section 25F of the I.D. Act.. Further the action of the management in terminating the service of the concerned w.e.f. 13/02/2015 is not justified. Hence the concerned workman is entitled for relief.

30. At this stage it is relevant to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decision has been pleased to observe that the completion of 240 days work doesn't under the law import the right to regularisation and it merely imposed certain obligation on the employer at the time of termination of service.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd Vs. Dan Bahadur Singh, as reported in (2007) 6 SCC 207, has been pleased to observe:-

"14. The next question which requires consideration is whether completion of 240 days in a year

confers any right on an employee or workman to claim regularisation in service. In Madhyamik

Shiksha Parishad vs. Anil Kumar Mishra it was held that the completion of 240 days' work does not

confer the right to regularisation under the Industrial Disputes Act. It merely imposes certain

obligations on the employer at the time of termination of the services. In M.P. Housing Board vs.

Manoj Shrivastava (para 17) after referring to several earlier decisions it has been reiterated that it is

well settled that only because a person had been working for more than 240 days, he does not derive

any legal right to be regularised in serivee. This view has been reiterated in Gangadhar Pillai vs.

Siemens Ltd. The same question has been examined in considerable detail with reference to an

employee working in a government company in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Workmen

and paras 34 and 35 of the report are being reproduced below: (SCC p.426)

"34. Thus, it is well settled that there is no right vested in any daily wager to seek regularisation.

Regularisation can only be done in accordance with the rules and not dehors the rules. In the case of

E. Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala this Court held that there can be no regularisation dehors the

rules. The same view was taken in Kishore (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra and Union of India v.

Bishamber Dutt. The direction issued by the services Tribunal for regularising the services of persons

who had not been appointed on regular basis in accordance with the rules was set aside although the

petitioner had been working regularly for a long time.

35. In Surinder Singh Jamwal (Dr.) v. State of J&K it was held that ad hoc appointment does not give

any right for regularization as regularization is governed by the statutory rules.""

The Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court has been pleased to observe in L.P.A No. 268/2012 which is as under:-

"(xiv) Be that as it may, even assuming without admitting that this appellant has worked more than 240

days in couple of years, then also, his services cannot be regularized. 240 days' working is not a magic

bond which converts illegal appointment into the legal appointment. In fact, 240 days working has

nothing to do with the regularization at all. 240 days working has got reference under Section 25-B of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for calculation of continuous years of service and nothing beyond

that. Unnecessarily several times the Labour Court or the Industrial Courts are committing an error

that if any worker has completed 240 days, their services should be regularized. In fact, there is no

casual connection at all between the working of 240 days and right of regularization. Illegality in the

appointment cannot be diluted by the working of 240 days. Illegality in the appointment continues, even

if, the worker has worked for 240 days."

The Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court has been further pleased to hold as follows:-

"Whenever any employment is given unauthorizedly, in the respondent-UCO Bank, Hirapur, Dhanbad,

such type of employment cannot be converted into a regular employment unless there are rules for

regularization or scheme for regularization. In the facts of the present case, there are no rules of

regularization nor there is any scheme of regularization floated by the UCO Bank. In absence of such

type of law, the charity shown by the Court will be cruelty to others. If such type regularization is

allowed by the Courts, it will provide encouragement to those who are adorning high-ranking

administrative position to give illegal appointment and later on, to get them regularized by the orders

of the Courts. A thing which cannot be done directly, can never be done indirectly. If no employment

can be given without there being any advertisement and without there being any recruitment process,

the Court cannot be a party to illegal regularization of such employee."

31. In view of such fact and in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court it is settled that the concerned workman is not entitled for regularization of his job for working 240 days in a calendar year in Gamharia Branch of Bank of Baroda.

32. It is relevant to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of BSNL Vs. Bhurumal as reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as under:-

34. The Reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization (See: State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1). Thus when he cannot claim regularization and he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose.

33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of District Development Officer Vs. Satish Kantilal Amrelia as reported in (2018) 12 SCC 29 B has been pleased to hold as follows:-

"16) In view of forgoing discussion, we are of the considered view that it would be just, proper and

reasonable to award lump sum monetary compensation to the respondent in full and final

satisfaction of his claim of re-instatement and other consequential benefits by taking recourse to the

powers under Section 11-A of the Act and the law laid down by this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Limited case (supra)".

34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court is an another case Deputy Executive Engineer Vs Kuberbhai Kanjhibhai as reported in 2019 (160) FLR 651 has reiterated the same principle.

35. Now, in this case the concerned workman had been working in Gamharia Branch of Bank of Baroda for about eight years as on casual basis as cleaning mazdoor cum peon and his service was terminated by the Gamharia Branch of Bank of India in the year 2015 without complying the provisions of section 25F of the I.D. Act. Moreover about five years have elapsed after his termination in the year 2015, so giving relief of reinstatement after long gap would not serve any purpose.

36. It is relevant to mention here that the facts and circumstances of this case is different from the facts and circumstances of the case relied by the learned lawyer of the workman, so the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 5551 of 2016 and Civil Writ Petition No. 125 of 2006 is not applicable in this case.

37. In view of such fact the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that it would be just, proper and reasonable to Award lump-sum monetary compensation to the concerned workman in full and final satisfaction of his claim of reinstatement and other benefits.

38. Hence, the following Award is rendered:-

"The action of the management of Bank of Baroda, Gamharia Branch in terminating service of Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh is not legal, justified and proper, so he is entitled for relief.

Hence, the Gamharia Branch of Bank of Baroda is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand) to the concerned workman namely Dinesh Kumar Singh after proper verification as compensation within one month after publication of the award.

This is the Award of this Tribunal.

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 4 दिसम्बर, 2020

.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक आफ बडौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, बंगलोर के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 06/2017) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04.12.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/24/2016-आई आर (बी-II)]

सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 4th December, 2020

S.O. 1065.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 06/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.12.2020.

[No. L-12011/24/2016-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3079

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

DATED : 13th NOVEMBER 2020

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

C R No. 06/2017

I Party

II Party

The Dy. General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Lexington Avenue, Brigade Road, BANGALORE – 560 025

The General Secretary, Bank of Baroda Employees Union, Regd Office, C/o Bank of Baroda, Kempgowda Road, BANGALORE – 560 009.

Appearances:

I Party     :    Sh. Muralidhara, Advocate
II Party    :    Sh. T. P. Muthanna, Advocate

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labourvide order No. L-12011/24/2016-IR(B-II) dated 26.04.2017in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as "The Act") (14 of 1947) referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda, Bangalore, in not regularizing 44

workmen mentioned in the Annexure (A-VIII) enclosed, for the post of Sweeper-cum-Peon, is

legal and justified? If not, what relief the respective 44 workmen are entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the reference order, notice was issued to both parties. Sh. MD, Advocate filed represented the 1st Party and filed Claim Statement. 2nd Party appeared through their Learned Counsel Sh. TPM. Though sufficient opportunity was provided they failed to file Counter Statement.The matter was posted for Evidence of 1st Party. On 10.11.2020 Sh. MD filed a Memo which reads thus:

"I Party / Union has raised the above dispute seeking regularization of 44 workmen in the

services of the II Party / Bank. However, the I party has filed another petition seeking

regularization of around 500 workers in the II Party / Bank, which includes 44 workmen named

in the above case.

In view of the above, I Party does not want to press the above case for adjudication.

WHEREFORE, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispose of the case (order of reference) as

"NOT PRESSED" in the interest of justice and equity."

3. In view of the above memonow it is not required to record any finding on the referred issue.

AWARD

Reference is Rejected.

(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 13th November 2020)

JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 4 दिसम्बर, 2020

.—औद्यौगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्यौगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्यौगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 22/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04.12.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/63/2005-आई आर (बी-II)]

सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अधिकारी3080 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 4th December, 2020

S.O. 1066.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.22/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.12.2020.

[No. L-12011/63/2005-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act. 1947

Reference: No. 22/2014

Employer in relation to the management of Central Bank of India, Muzaffarpur

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For Employer : Sri R. Ranjan, Advocate

For workman : Sri B. Prasad, Rep.

State : Jharkhand. Industry:- Banking

Dated : 31.07 .2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-12011/63/2005-IR(B-II)) dated 12.02.2014, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub -section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Muzaffarpur in terminating

the services of Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sub-staff, Devapur Branch, P.O.- Motihari, Distt. East

Champaran (Bihar) is legal and or justified? If not, what relief Shri Ramesh Kumar is entitled

to?"

2. The Tribunal in this matter has passed an award on 06/04/2015 holding that the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Muzaffarpur in terminating the service of Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sub- Staff, Devapur Branch, P.O-Motihari, Distt- East Champaran (Bihar) is not justified, so the workman be engaged at once, without giving any back wages. The management being aggrieved by the said award filed a writ petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 993/2016 before the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. The Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi has been pleased to set aside the said award and remitted the case back to the Tribunal for hearing the parties afresh on the basis of materials already on record.

After production of the order of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court passed in W.P. (C) No. 993/2016 both the parties were heard again.

3. The claim of the sponsoring union, Bihar, Provincial Central Bank of India Employees Association representing the concerned workman namely Sri Ramesh Kumar, as per written statement, is as follows:-

That the concerned workman had been orally appointed by the management of Central Bank of India to discharge the duties of a peon at Devapur Branch , P.O. Motihari, Distt. East Champaran (Bihar) w.e.f. 26/07/1999 and after appointment he used to work in the Bank from 10 A.M. to 6 P.M. The workman used to discharge the duties in Bank including taking out ledgers/registers from the almirah, carrying token book/scroll book from accounts department to cash department, taking out cash box from the strong Room, stitching of currency notes, cleaning tables, chairs, posting of mails to Post Office, distribution of letter of Bank through peon book, serving water, tea to the members of staff and customers and he had been paid his wages through debit vouchers of the Bank. The concerned workman had been discharging all the duties of a peon from[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3081 26/07/1999 to 13/05/2000 uninterruptedly, so he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year but in the evening of 13/05/2000 i.e. at the close of working hours, he was told by the Branch Manager that his services were no longer required and on next day when he had gone to the Bank he was stopped from discharging his duties without been given any prior notice or payment of compensation of retrenchment. Thereafter the concerned workman had represented to the management for his reinstatement and regularization of his services as a peon but no positive step was taken and on finding no redressal of this grievances, he had raised an Industrial Dispute through the sponsoring union before the appropriate authority.

The sponsoring union has made a prayer for reinstatement of service of the concerned workman as a peon under Bank's Subordinate Cadre, regularization of his service and payment of his back wages from the date of termination.

4. The case of the management, Central Bank of India as per its written statement is as follows:-

That the concerned workman namely Ramesh Kumar was not workman so the instant dispute is outside the scope of Industrial Disputes Act. The concerned workman was never appointed by the competent authority on any permanent post after following and complying with prescribed proceedings under the rules for employment in the service of Bank, so there was no employer-employee relationship between the concerned workman and the Bank, as a result the instant dispute is outside the scope of the I.D. Act. The concerned workman was engaged on day to day basis on a purely casual nature of jobs which came to an end at the end each and every day and he was engaged for casual work from 26/07/1999 to 13/05/2000. The concerned workman had never rendered continuous service in the Bank, so the scope and purview of section 25 F of Industrial Dispute Act is not applicable. The concerned workman has raised the dispute after five years without any reasonable and valid explanation for this long delay, so it is a stale case. It is an established principle of law that a person who had been engaged in violation of rules and procedure of recruitment in a permanent post cannot claim permanent employment under the employers, so the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief.

5. The concerned sponsoring union has filed rejoinder to the written statement of the management.

6. The sponsoring union has examined two witnesses in support of its case. They are WW-1, Ramesh Kumar the concerned workman and WW-2, Madan Prasad.

7. The WW-1 Ramesh Kumar has deposed before the Tribunal that he had worked as peon in the Central Bank of India, Devapur Branch, East Champaran and he used to discharge his work including putting ledgers on the table, arranging/setting vouchers, cleaning of table, bringing tea for staff, putting cash box, distributing letters etc from 10 A.M. to 6 P.M. all along since 26/07/1999 to 13/05/2000 continuously for 293 days on the direction of the Branch Manager. He has also deposed that he used to discharge the work of a permanent employee as there was no permanent employee at that time in Branch but he was retrenched from the service from 15th May 2000 without any notice or any payment of compensation. He has also stated that he has submitted several representation before the Management. He has proved the photocopies of those representation which are marked as Exhibit W-1 series. He has also proved the photocopy of circulars of Bank dated 16/11/2000 to 13/09/2001 which are marked as Exhibit W-2 series. He has also proved a forwarding letter of Bank dated 22/11/2000 and 20/09/2001 with enclosure which are marked as Exhibit W-3 series. He has also stated that his claim is for reinstatement and regularisation as a peon is justified.

In the cross-examination he has deposed that he was not a member of any union and no union had told me to be its member. He has also deposed that he used to get payment of wages through vouchers. He has also stated that all the circulars and my representations which I had submitted before the Tribunal were taken by me on the instruction of Branch Manager. He has denied the suggestions that he had worked as casual worker and he was not regular worker in the Bank.

8. The WW-2 Madan Prasad has deposed that he was posted as Branch Manager at Devapur, East Champaran from 09/07/1999 to 13/05/2002 and at time Ramesh Kumar was working in the Branch from 26/07/1999 to 13/05/2000 as a peon like a permanent one. He has also stated that there was no permanent peon at that time in Branch and the Branch Manager had made several request for regularisation of temporary worker as permanent. He has proved the photo copy of letter dated 22/11/2000 and the proforma for temporary worker dated 20/09/2001 which had already been marked as Exhibit W-2/1 and Exhibit W-2/4. He has also proved the copy of letter dated 20/09/2001 which had already been marked as Exhibit W-2/3 as enclosure to the aforesaid Exhibit W-2/4. He has also deposed that the concerned workman was covered under the scheme of the Bank, so he had forwarded his name for absorption in permanent cadre.

In the cross-examination he has deposed that no written appointment letter was given to the concerned workman and he was temporarily kept by him in the Bank. He has also admitted that there is no provision for temporary workers to mark their attendance in the Muster Roll. He has also deposed that payment to the concerned workman was made through vouchers subject to the approval of Higher Authority. He has further3082 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] stated that the concerned workman had worked for 293 days. He has denied the suggestion that workman had never done continuous work for 293 days.

9. The sponsoring union has proved the following documents which are marked as:-

Exhibit W-1- Xerox copy of letter dated 17/05/2000 of the workman addressed to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Devapur Branch for reinstatement and regularization of his service as peon.

Exhibit W-1/1- Xerox Copy of letter dated 16/08/2001 of the workman requesting for reinstatement and regularization.

Exhibit W-1/2- Xerox Copy of letter dated 06/01/2003 of the workman addressed to the Management for reinstatement and regularization of his service.

Exhibit W-1/3- Xerox Copy of letter dated 28/12/2004 of the workman requesting for his reinstatement and regularization of this service.

Exhibit W-2- Xerox Copy of Circular No: 16 dated 16.11.2000 of Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Motihari.

Exhibit W-2/1- Xerox Copy of Letter dated 22/11/2000 of Branch Manager of Devapur Branch, CBI informing the engagement of concerned workman and others on casual/temporary basis.

Exhibit W-2/2- is the Xerox Copy of Circular No: 1-02/14 dated 13/09/2001 of Central Bank of India, Motihari.

Exhibit W-2/3- Xerox Copy of letter dated 20/09/2001 of the Branch Manager addressed to Regional Office Motihari informing the Management regarding working of Ramesh Kumar from 26/07/1999 to 13/05/2000 continuously for 293 days as a Sub Staff(Peon).

Exhibit W-2/4- Xerox Copy of Proforma sent by the Branch Manager, Devapur certifying that the workman- Ramesh Kumar worked at Devapur Branch.

Exhibit W-3- Xerox Copy of Circular dated 16/11/2011 issued by the Management of Central Bank of India regarding absorption of the services of daily rated/casual workmen performing the duties of a peon.

10. On the other hand the management has examined only one witness. He is MW-1,Vijay Kumar Mishra .

11. The MW-1 Vijay Kumar Mishra has deposed that he had been working as Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Devapur Branch, East Champaran since 21/09/2011. He has also deposed that he came to know through vouchers payment dated 31/07/1999 to 31/12/1999 that Ramesh Kumar had worked as a peon. He has proved the photo copy of the vouchers in 17 sheets which are marked as Exhibit M-1 to Exhibit M-16. He has also proved the vouchers dated 03/01/2000 to 13/05/2000 which are marked as Exhibit M-1/17 to Exhibit 1/26. He has further deposed that the concerned workman was not issued any appointment letter for the job.

In the cross-examination he has deposed that he had joined Central Bank of India, Devapur Branch, East Champaran on 22/04/2002 and he couldn't say whether any permanent peon was posted in the said Bank at that time or not. He has also deposed that Sri Madan Prasad was posted as a Branch Manager during that period. He has further deposed that he had not seen any circular of the Bank for regularisation of temporary workman. He has expressed his ignorance with regard to attention drawn on Exhibit W-2/2 as he was not in service at that time. He has also deposed that the Exhibit W-2/4 shows 293 days with no permanent posting of a peon during that period. He has admitted the circular dated 16/11/2011 regarding regularisation of temporary workman and the same marked as Exhibit W-3. He has also deposed that he had no knowledge about the workman.

12. The management has proved the following documents which are marked as follows:-

Exhibit M-1- PL Voucher date 31/07/1999 for Rs. 150 paid to Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 26/07/1999 to 31/07/1999 (6 days).

Exhibit M-1/1- PL Voucher date 10/08/1999 for Rs. 150 paid to Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 02/08/1999 to 07/08/1999 ( 6 days).

Exhibit M-1/2- PL Voucher date 14/08/1999 for Rs. 150 paid to Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 09/08/1999 to 14/08/1999 ( 6 days).

Exhibit M-1/3- PL Voucher date 21/08/1999 for Rs. 150 paid to Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 16/08/1999 to 21/08/1999 ( 6 days).

Exhibit M-1/4- PL Voucher date 30/08/1999 for Rs. 150 paid to Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 23/08/1999 to 28/08/1999 ( 6 days).

Exhibit M-1/5- PL Voucher date 04/09/1999 for Rs. 125 paid to Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 30/08/1999 to 04/09/1999 ( 5 days).

Exhibit M-1/6- PL Voucher date 11/09/1999 for Rs. 150 paid to Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 06/09/1999 to 11/09/1999 ( 6 days).

Exhibit M-1/7- PL Voucher date 24/09/1999 for Rs. 275 paid to Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 13/09/1999 to 24/09/1999 ( 11 days).

Exhibit M-1/8- PL Voucher date 15/10/1999 for Rs. 275 paid to Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 04/10/1999 to 15/10/1999 ( 11 days).

Exhibit M-1/9- PL Voucher date 30/10/1999 for Rs. 250 paid to Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 21/10/1999 to 30/10/1999 ( 10 days).

Exhibit M-1/10- PL Voucher date 30/10/1999 for Rs. 250 paid to Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 21/10/1999 to 30/10/1999 ( 10 days).

Exhibit M-1/11- PL Voucher date 12/11/1999 for Rs. 275 paid to Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 01/11/1999 to 12/11/1999 ( 11 days).

Exhibit M-1/12- PL Voucher date 20/11/1999 for Rs. 150 paid to Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 15/11/1999 to 20/11/1999 ( 6 days).

Exhibit M-1/13- PL Voucher date 04/12/1999 for Rs. 275 paid to Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 22/11/1999 to 04/12/1999 ( 11 days).

Exhibit M-1/14- PL Voucher date 11/12/1999 for Rs. 150 paid to Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 06/12/1999 to 11/12/1999 ( 6 days).

Exhibit M-1/15- PL Voucher date 18/12/1999 for Rs. 150 paid to Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 13/12/1999 to 18/12/1999 ( 6 days).

Exhibit M-1/16- PL Voucher date 24/12/1999 for Rs. 125 paid to Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 20/12/1999 to 24/12/1999 ( 5 days).

Exhibit M-1/17- PL Voucher date 31/12/1999 for Rs. 125 paid to Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 27/12/1999 to 31/12/1999 ( 5 days).

Exhibit M-1/18- PL Voucher date 07/01/2000 for Rs. 125 paid to Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 03/01/2000 to 07/01/2000 ( 5 days).

Exhibit M-1/19- PL Voucher date 15/10/2000 for Rs. 125 paid to Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 10/01/2000 to 15/01/2000 ( 5 days).

Exhibit M-1/20- PL Voucher date 29/01/2000 for Rs. 250 paid to Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 17/01/2000 to 29/01/2000 ( 10 days).

Exhibit M-1/21- PL Voucher date 05/02/2000 for Rs. 150 paid to Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 31/01/2000 to 05/02/2000 ( 6 days).

Exhibit M-1/22- PL Voucher date 15/03/2000 for Rs. 325 paid to Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 07/02/2000 to 12/02/2000 and 14/02/2000 to 19/02/2000 and 21/02/2000 ( 13 days).

Exhibit M-1/23- PL Voucher date 25/03/2000 for Rs. 225 paid to Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 13/03/2000 to 18/03/2000 and 23/03/2000 to 25/03/2000 and 21/02/2000 ( 9 days).

Exhibit M-1/24- PL Voucher date 10/04/2000 for Rs. 300 paid to Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 27/03/2000 to 08/04/2000 ( 12 days).

Exhibit M-1/25- PL Voucher date 29/04/2000 for Rs. 275 paid to Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 10/04/2000 to 29/04/2000 ( 11 days).

Exhibit M-1/26- PL Voucher date 17/05/2000 for Rs. 250 paid to Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 02/05/2000 to 06/05/2000 and 08/05/2000 to 13/05/2000 ( 10 days).

13. The learned lawyer of the Sponsoring Union has submitted before the Tribunal that the concerned workman namely Ramesh Kumar had been appointed by Central Bank of India, Devapur Branch, East Champaran on temporary basis in permanent nature and he had worked from 26/07/1999 to 13/05/2000, so he had worked in the said Bank continuously for 293 days. He has also submitted that the management had illegally and arbitrarily terminated his service without following the provision of 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act, so his service may be reinstated as a peon under subordinate cadre of Bank after regularising his service and making payment of full back wages from the date of his termination. He has relied on the decisions of3084 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Devandar Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation, Umrala Gram Panchayat Vs The Sec. Municipal Employee Union, T.Nadu Termd. Full Time Tem. Lic… Vs Life Insurance Corp. Of India & Ors and Vinay Prakash Vs. Bank of India. He has also relied on the decision of Patna High Court passed in the case of Mithilesh Kumar Singh Vs State of Bihar and Ors and The Management of Punjab National Bank Vs Mintu Kumar & Anr.

14. On the other hand the learned lawyer of the management has submitted that the concerned workman namely Ramesh Kumar had been engaged on daily wages and he was not a workman of the bank, so there is no employer-employee relationship between the concerned workman and the Bank. He has also submitted that the concerned workman had never rendered his continuous service in the Bank and had never worked for twelve months in a calendar year. He has also argued that the claim of the sponsoring union is not legal and justified and the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief

15. Now the only point of determination in this case is whether the action of the management of Central bank of India, Muzaffarpur in terminating the service of Sri Ramesh Kumar the concerned workman is legal and justified and whether he has entitled for any relief.

FINDINGS

16. It is pleading of the Sponsoring Union that the concerned workman had been appointed as a peon in permanent nature in the Central Bank of India, Devapur Branch as a peon and he had rendered his service from 26/07/1999 to 13/05/2000 uninterrupted, so he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year but he had been terminated without complying the provision of section 25F of the I.D. Act.

It is further case of the Sponsoring Union that the service of the concerned workman would be regularised in subordinate cadre with the payment of all back wages.

17. On the other hand it is the case of the management that the concerned workman was never appointed as a peon and he was engaged as a daily wager in the Bank to meet the needs of the Bank, so there is question of his termination from the service of Bank.

It is further case of the management that the concerned workman had never rendered continuous service of more than 240 days in a calendar year in the Bank and he was not an employee of the Bank, so this reference case is not maintainable.

18. Now in the light of the pleadings of both the parties the Tribunal will analyze the oral and documentary evidence of both the parties.

19. In this case the most competent witness is WW-1 Ramesh Kumar. He has deposed that he worked in the Central Bank of India, Devapur Branch as a peon since 26/07/1999 to 13/05/2000 continuously on the direction of the Branch Manager and during that period there was no permanent peon in the Bank. He has also stated that he had worked for about 293 days in the Bank continuously but his service was terminated from 15 May 2000 without following the provision of 25 F of the I.D. Act. In the cross-examination he has admitted that the Branch Manager had not given any appointment letter to him.

The WW-2 Madan Prasad who was the Branch Manager during the said period has supported the case of the workman and has deposed that the concerned workman had worked in the Branch from 26/07/1999 to 13/05/2000 and at that time there was no permanent peon in the Bank. In the cross-examination he has admitted that no written appointment letter was given to him and he was temporarily kept by him. He has also admitted that there is no provision for temporary workers to mark their attendance in Muster Roll.

20. The MW-1 has deposed that he came to know through vouchers payment dated 31/07/1999 to 13/05/2000 that the concerned workman had worked as peon. In the cross-examination he has admitted the circular dated 16/11/2011 of Central Bank of India regarding regularization of temporary workman.

21. Now coming to the documentary evidence of the workman it appears that the Exhibit W-1, Exhibit W- 1/1, Exhibit W-1/2, Exhibit W-1/3 are representation of concerned workman submitted to the Branch Manager for regularisation of his service against the permanent post on different dates. Further the Exhibit W-2 is a general letter issued by Regional Manager, Central Bank of India regarding information of subordinate staff engaged on casual/temporary basis and Exhibit W-2/1 is a letter issued by Branch Manager of Devapur Branch, Central Bank of India to the Regional Office mentioning in details the information of subordinate staff engaged on casual/temporary basis in which the name of concerned workman has been mentioned as working from 26/07/1999 to 13/05/2000 for a period of 240 days in one year. Further the Exhibit W-2/2 is a general letter issued by the Regional Manager on 13/09/2001 regarding information of temporary workers. Moreover the Exhibit W-2/3, is a letter of Branch Manager, Devapur to Regional Office, Motihari mentioning the name of concerned workman namely Ramesh Kumar working as sub-staff since 26/07/1999 to 13/05/2000 and Exhibit 2/4 is pro-forma of information of temporary workers in which the name of workman namely Ramesh Kumar has been mentioned as working from 25/07/1999 to 13/05/2000 total 293 days as sub staff and no permanent full[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3085 time staff posted during this period. Further the Exhibit W-3 is a general letter issued by AGM, Central Bank of India regarding information temporary/casual workers.

22. The documentary evidences of the management are the payment vouchers by which payment of wages are made to the concerned workman. After perusal, it appears that Exhibit M-1 to Exhibit M-1/26 are vouchers of payment made to the concerned workman as a labour charge of different period starting from 26/07/1999 to 13/05/2000. It further appears that payment was not continuous but he was paid for five days, six days or for a longer period by different vouchers.

23. Now, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence available on the record the Tribunal finds that the concerned workman namely Ramesh Kumar had been orally engaged as sub staff in Devapur Branch of Central Bank of India without issuance of any appointment letter and the concerned workman had worked in Devapur Branch of Central Bank of India since 26/07/1999 to 13/05/2000 continuously for 293 days. Further the Tribunal also finds that the concerned workman had been paid his remuneration for the period he had worked in the Bank on different dates and he had not been paid his salary on the monthly basis. The Tribunal also finds that finds that the concerned workman had been removed from his service on 15/05/2000.

24. It is important to mention here that the workman has been defined u/s 2(s) of Industrial Dispute Act. The Section 2(s) of I.D. Act reads as follows:-

"workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-

(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a person, or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or

(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding ( ten thousand rupees) per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature

25. At this stage it is relevant to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case as reported in 2011 LAB. I. C. 2799 (S.C) has been pleased to observe as follows:-

"14. It is apposite to observe that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full-time and part-time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only a person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole-time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part-time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman.

15. Whenever an employer challenges the maintainability ground that the employee is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act, what the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is required to consider is whether the person is employed in an industry for hire or reward for doing manual, unskilled, skilled, operational, technical or clerical work in an industry. Once the test of employment for hire or reward for doing the specified type of work is satisfied, the employee would fall within the definition of 'workman".

26. It is required to mentioned here that the concerned workman namely Ramesh Kumar had worked in Devapur Branch of Central Bank of India as sub staff and he was paid his remuneration by PL Vouchers of Bank on different dates, so he was employed in the Devapur Branch of Central Bank of India on hire and consequently he was a workman of the Devapur Branch of Central Bank of India and there was a relationship between him and the management as employee and employer, so there is an Industrial Dispute.

27. It is also relevant to mention here that the word retrenchment has been defined u/S 2(oo) of the I .D .Act, definition of continuous service has been mentioned u/s 25-B of I . D .Act and the condition precedent to retrenchment have been mentioned u/S 25 F of I.D Act.

Section 2(oo) of the I.D.Act reads as follows:-

Section 2(oo) -"retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include-

(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or3086 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

(bb) Termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or

(c) Termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health.

The Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act reads as follows:-

25-F Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen- No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-

(a) The workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for

retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of

such notice, wages for the period of the notice:

(b) The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be

equivalent to fifteen days' average pay (for Every completed year of continuous service) or

any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government (or such

authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official

Gazette.)

At this stage it is required to mentioned here that the word continuous service has

been define under Section 25-B of the I.D. Act. The Section 25-B of I.D. Act reads as follows:-

25-B. Definition of continuous service – For the purpose of this Chapter,-

(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;

(2) Where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-

(a) for a period one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than –

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

(b)…………………………………..

28. Now in this case there is categorical evidence that the concerned workman namely Ramesh Kumar had worked in Devapur Branch of Central Bank of India for more than 240 days in twelve calendar months as per Exhibit W-2/1, Exhibit W-2/3 and Exhibit W-2/4, which are documents of the Bank, so the concerned workman was in continuous service in the Bank as per definition mentioned u/s 25-B of I.D' Act. Moreover there is also evidence that the concerned workman was removed from his service on 15/05/2000. Further there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the concerned workman had been given one month notice in writing indicating the reasons for his retrenchment/ removal or had been paid compensation equivalent to 15 days of average pay as per provision of 25-F of the I.D. Act.

29. Hence, in view of above the discussion the Tribunal holds that the concerned workman namely Ramesh Kumar had been working in Devapur Branch of Central Bank of India, since 26/07/1999 to 13.05.2000 as peon/sub staff and he had been removed from service w.e.f. 15/05/2000. Further the action of the management in terminating the service of the concerned w.e.f. 15/05/2000 is not justified. Hence the concerned workman is entitled for relief.

30. At this stage it is relevant to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decision has been pleased to observed that the completion of 240 days work doesn't under the law import the right to regularisation and it merely imposed certain obligation on the employer at the time of termination of service.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd Vs. Dan Bahadur Singh, as reported in (2007) 6 SCC 207, especially in Paragraph No. 18 as under:-

"18. The next question which requires consideration is whether completion of 240 days in a year

confers any right on an employee or workman to claim regularisation in service. In Madhyamik

Shiksha Parishad vs. Anil Kumar Mishra it was held that the completion of 240 days' work does not

confer the right to regularisation under the Industrial Disputes Act. It merely imposes certain

obligations on the employer at the time of termination of the services. In M.P. Housing Board vs.

Manoj Shrivastava (para 17) after referring to several earlier decisions it has been reiterated that it is

well settled that only because a person had been working for more than 240 days, he does not derive

any legal right to be regularised in serivee. This view has been reiterated in Gangadhar Pillai vs.

Siemens Ltd. The same question has been examined in considerable detail with reference to an

employee working in a government company in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Workmen

and paras 34 and 35 of the report are being reproduced below: (SCC p.426)

"34. Thus, it is well settled that there is no right vested in any daily wager to seek regularisation.

Regularisation can only be done in accordance with the rules and not dehors the rules. In the case of

E. Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala this Court held that there can be no regularisation dehors the

rules. The same view was taken in Kishore (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra and Union of India v.

Bishamber Dutt. The direction issued by the services Tribunal for regularising the services of persons

who had not been appointed on regular basis in accordance with the rules was set aside although the

petitioner had been working regularly for a long time.

35. In Surinder Singh Jamwal (Dr.) v. State of J&K it was held that ad hoc appointment does not give

any right for regularization as regularization is governed by the statutory rules.""

The Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court has been pleased to observe in L.P.A No. 268/2012 which is as under:-

"(xiv) Be that as it may, even assuming without admitting that this appellant has worked more than 240

days in couple of years, then also, his services cannot be regularized. 240 days' working is not a magic

bond which converts illegal appointment into the legal appointment. In fact, 240 days working has

nothing to do with the regularization at all. 240 days working has got reference under Section 25-B of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for calculation of continuous years of service and nothing beyond

that. Unnecessarily mes the Labour Court or the Industrial Courts are committing an error that if any

worker has completed 240 days, their services should be regularized. In fact, there is no casual

connection at all between the working of 240 days and right of regularization. Illegality in the

appointment cannot be diluted by the working of 240 days. Illegality in the appointment continues, even

if, the worker has worked for 240 days."

The Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court has been further pleased to hold as follows:-

"Whenever any employment is given unauthorizedly, in the respondent-UCO Bank, Hirapur, Dhanbad,

such type of employment cannot be converted into a regular employment unless there are rules for

regularization or scheme for regularization. In the facts of the present case, there are no rules of

regularization nor there is any scheme of regularization floated by the UCO Bank. In absence of such

type of law, the charity shown by the Court will be cruelty to others. If such type regularization is

allowed by the Courts, it will provide encouragement to those who are adorning high-ranking

administrative position to give illegal appointment and later on, to get them regularized by the orders

of the Courts. A thing which cannot be done directly, can never be done indirectly. If no employment

can be given without there being any advertisement and without there being any recruitment process,

the Court cannot be a party to illegal regularization of such employee."

31. In view of such fact and in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court it is settled that the concerned workman namely Ramesh Kumar is not entitled for regularization of his job for working 240 days in a twelve calendar months in Devapur Branch of Central Bank of India.

32. It is relevant to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of BSNL Vs. Bhurumal as reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as under:-

34. The Reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that

when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and

notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after

reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by

paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis

and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization (See: State of Karnataka vs. Uma

Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1). Thus when he cannot claim regularization and he has no right to continue even

as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he

can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after

reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment

compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a

long gap, would not serve any purpose.

33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of District Development Officer Vs. Satish Kantilal Amrelia as reported in (2018) 12 SCC 29 B has been pleased to hold as follows:-

"16) In view of forgoing discussion, we are of the considered view that it would be just, proper and

reasonable to award lump sum monetary compensation to the respondent in full and final

satisfaction of his claim of re-instatement and other consequential benefits by taking recourse to the

powers under Section 11-A of the Act and the law laid down by this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Limited case (supra)".

34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court is an another case Deputy Executive Engineer Vs Kuberbhai Kanjhibhai as reported in 2019 (160) FLR 651 has reiterated the same principle.

35. Now, in this case the concerned workman had been working in Devapur Branch of Central Bank of India since 26/07/1999 to 13/05/2000 and his service was terminated by the Devapur Branch of Central Bank of India on 15/05/2000 without complying the provisions of section 25F of the I.D. Act.. Moreover after his termination in the year 2000 about twenty years have elapsed, so giving relief of reinstatement after long gap would not serve any purpose.

36. It is relevant to mention here that the facts and circumstances of this case is different from the facts and circumstances of the case relied by the learned representative of the workman, so the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court as passed in Umrala Gram Panchayat Vs The Sec. Municipal Employee Union, T. Nadu Termd. Full Time Tem. Lic… Vs Life Insurance Corp. of India & Ors and Vinay Prakash Vs Bank of India & Ors. as well as the decision of Hon'ble Patna High Court as passed in Mithilesh Kumar Singh Vs State of Bihar And Ors, The Management of Punjab National Bank Vs Mintu Kumar & Anr. are not applicable in this case.

37. In view of such fact the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that it would be just proper and reasonable to Award lump-sum monetary compensation to the concerned workman in full and final satisfaction of his claim of reinstatement and other benefits.

38. Hence, the Devapur Branch of Central Bank of India is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs) to the concerned workman namely Ramesh Kumar after proper verification as compensation within one month after publication of the award in Official Gazette.

This is the Award of this Tribunal.

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 4 दिसम्बर, 2020

.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार केनरा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 55/2003) को प्रकाशित करती है

जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04.12.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/2/2003-आई आर (बी-II)]

सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 4th December, 2020

S.O. 1067.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 55/2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.12.2020.

[No. L-12011/2/2003-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3089

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

PRESENT: P. K. SRIVASTAVA, HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 55/2003

Ref. No. L-12011/2/2003-IR(B-II) dated: 29.04.2003

BETWEEN:

The Assistant Secretary Canara Bank Employees' Union C/o Canara Bank, 426 – W-2, Basant Vihar Kanpur – 21. (Espousing case of Sri K. N. Khatri)

AND

The Dy. General Manager Canara Bank Circle Office, Vipin Khand Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (UP) – 226010

AWARD

1. By order No. L-12011/2/2003-IR(B-II) dated: 29.04.2003 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"WHETHER HE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF CANARA BANK, LUCKNOW IN

IMPOSING THE PUNISHMENT OF STOPPAGE OF TWO INCREMENTS WITH

CUMULATIVE EFFECT ON SHRI K.N. KHATRI VIDE ORDER DATED 31.3.2001 IS LEGAL

AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, WHAT RELIEF IS THE CONCERNED WORKMAN ENTITLED

TO?"

3. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman, K. N. Khatri was working as Armed Guard in Sald Mahadev Branch of Canara Bank, when he placed under suspension vide order dated 07.051992; and subsequently, was issued a major penalty charge sheet dated 31.07.1992 for gross misconduct i.e. misbehaving and assaulting the Manager/staff and disorderly behavior in the bank premises. The Disciplinary Authority, on the basis of findings of the Enquiry Officer, issued show cause; whereby the workman was proposed of the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect upon the workman. The Disciplinary Authority passed punishment order dated 31.03.2001; which was subsequently confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.02.2002.

4. It has been alleged by the workman that the Departmental proceedings which were conducted in violation to the principles of natural justice is liable to be set aside. Moreover, he has also come up with a case that the management of the bank had also lodged an FIR for the alleged misconduct; wherein charge sheet was filed and later on he had been acquitted by the Trial Court on 27.11.1999 and on his acquittal, the workman requested the management to drop the charges, but the management, denying his request proceeded with the inquiry and after conducting the same in arbitrary manner, imposed the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The workman has also alleged that the Appellate Authority also rejected his appeal dated 18.05.2001 vide order dated 27.02.2002 in utter violation of paragraph 19.14 of the Bipartite Settlement an illegal manner and has prayed that the action of the management in imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect be declared illegal and unjustified and the same may be set aside with consequential benefits.

5. The management of the Bank in its written statement has denied the allegations of the workman and has submitted that the workman had been involved in willfully causing damage to the property of the Bank and for misbehaving and assaulting the Manager/staff and disorderly behavior in the bank premises; resultantly, he had been placed under suspension vide dated 07.05.1992 and subsequently was issued a charge sheet dated 31.07.1992 for gross misconduct. The management has also submitted that the was afforded all reasonable opportunity to defend himself, inasmuch as the departmental proceedings were conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and after thorough appreciation of the findings of the inquiry officer, the workman was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, which was3090 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] subsequently confirmed by the Appellate Authority under Rules. As regards acquittal of eh workman in criminal case, the management has submitted that the same was not clean acquittal but after giving him benefit of doubt, therefore, it had no effect on the ongoing domestic inquiry. The management has submitted that the punishment order is well reasoned and speaking; therefore, the same is liable to be up held, without any relief to the workman concerned.

6. The workman's union has filed its rejoinder, reiterating the averments already made in the statement of claim.

7. The parties have filed documents in support of its case. The workman's union examined the workman; whereas the management has examined Shri Arun Srivastava, Inquiry Officer in support of their respective case. The parties did not turn up to argue their case; however, their written submission were already on record, therefore, keeping in view long pendency of the case, the file was reserved for award.

8. Since the alleged action of the management for reduction of basis pay was based on the domestic inquiry, therefore, following preliminary issues were framed vide order dated 26.02.2020:

(i) Whether the domestic inquiry conducted by the management is fair and proper; and

(ii) Whether the findings of inquiry officer are perverse?

(iii) Whether the punishment imposed is proportionate to the charges or not?

The parties have led their respective evidence on the schedule of reference as a whole; therefore, the same is taken into account for adjudicating the preliminary issues framed hereinabove.

9. It had been alleged by the workman that the Departmental proceedings which were conducted in violation to the principles of natural justice is liable to be set aside. Moreover, he has also come up with a case that the management of the bank had also lodged an FIR for the alleged misconduct; wherein charge sheet was filed and later on he had been acquitted by the Trial Court on 27.11.1999 and on his acquittal, the workman requested the management to drop the charges, but the management, denying his request proceeded with the inquiry and after conducting the same in arbitrary manner, imposed the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The workman has also alleged that the Appellate Authority also rejected his appeal dated 18.05.2001 vide order dated 27.02.2002 in utter violation of paragraph 19.14 of the Bipartite Settlement an illegal manner and has prayed that the action of the management in imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect be declared illegal and unjustified and the same may be set aside with consequential benefits.

10. However, in rebuttal the management has come up with a case, that the workman who was indulged in disruptive activities at work place and not only used abusive language but also hurled his seniors causing utter indiscipline, was placed under suspension and subsequently was issued a charge sheet to the workman and after conducting a detailed inquiry, wherein the principles of natural justice was observed, the workman was found partially guilty for the alleged charges and rsutantlly, the workman was punished with stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. It is also the case of the management that the FIR was also lodged against the workman for similar deed; wherein he was acquitted, giving him benefit of doubt; hence the acquittal was not clean. The management had argued that the management had right to proceed with the departmental inquiry even after acquittal of the workman in criminal proceedings as departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings stand in a different footing. The management has relied upon:

(i) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs MG Vittal Rao

(Manu/SC/1368/2011).

(ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hon'ble High Cout of Judicature Bombay through its Registrar vs

Shri Uday Singh JT 1997 (5) SC 298.

(iii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalit Popli vs Canara Bank & others (2003) 3 SCC 583.

Issue No. 01:-

11. As regards first issue regarding fairness of the domestic inquiry, the workman's union has taken a stand that the workman's request for dropping the charges was not adhered to by the management of the Bank on the basis of his acquittal in the criminal case with same charges and secondly that the principles of natural justice was duly followed during the departmental proceedings. The workman stated on oath that he sought time to file reply to the findings of the inquiry officer which was not granted; likewise, he was also not given opportunity for personal hearing. However, the workman during his cross-examination, stated that he participated in the inquiry proceedings, he was represented by one Sri Sudhir Sonkar in the said inquiry. He also stated that he was granted adjournment on absence of his defence representative; moreover, he also filed with written submission[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3091 before the inquiry, he was given copy of report of inquiry officer along with show cause and was given time for representation and when he did not represent in time, the punishment was imposed upon him. Though the workman has pleaded that there was violation of principles of natural justice; but failed to substantiate the same through cogent evidence i.e. documentary or oral. On the contrary, from perusal of the admission made by him during the cross-examination before this Tribunal this goes to establish that the domestic inquiry was fairly conducted by the management and the workman had been given all reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the course of the inquiry and the workman's union has pleaded wrong facts before this Tribunal and it has not come with clean hands.

Also, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. Ltd. vs Sri C. Nagaraju & Anr. 2019 LLR 1181 has observed as under:

"9. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising the power to

conduct departmental proceedings in accordance with the rules and regulations. The two

proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and

have different objectives. Ajit Kumar Nag (Supra). In the disciplinary proceedings, the question in

whether the Respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser

punishment, as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings, the question is whether the

offences registered against him under the PC Act are established, and if established, what sentence

should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of inquiry and the rules governing

inquiry and trial in both the cases are significantly distinct and different. State of Rajasthan v.

B. K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417."

Hence, from perusal of the above quoted law, it is crystal clear that the submissions of the workman's union that the management should not have proceeded with the departmental inquiry on his acquittal in the criminal proceedings is not acceptable. Accordingly, the issue No. 01 is decided in favour of the management.

Issue No. 02:-

12. As regards, issue No. 2, it is apparent on the face of record that the workman participated in the departmental proceedings and had been afforded all reasonable opportunity to defend himself; moreover, acquittal of the workman in the criminal case has no effect on the ongoing departmental action. Also, the workman's union has not suggested at any juncture that the findings of the inquiry officer was perverse or inconsistent with the evidence collected by him during the course of inquiry, I am of the considered view that the findings of the inquiry officer were not perverse.

Issue No. 03:-

13. Now taking up the third issue, It is well settled that the Labour Court has ample power under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to substitute a lesser punishment, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, the principle of proportionality calls for interference of this Court into the punishment imposed by the management i.e. of removal in view of law in Joseph Solomon vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Dehradun & another 2012 (134) FLR 424.

14. In the instant case the workman was charge sheeted for his alleged involvement in willfully causing damage to the property of the Bank and for misbehaving and assaulting the Manager/staff and disorderly behavior in the bank premises; which has been found partially proved by the inquiry officer and accordingly, the workman had been issued a show cause notice regarding stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect.

15. Hon'ble Apex Court in B.C. Chayurvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 while discussing about the scope of judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as under:

"The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute

its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the

disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it

would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to

reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare

cases, imposed appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."

In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:

"6…………. Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed

by the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion

that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the

relevant factors including the nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed

earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of

an discipline required to be maintained, and the department/establishment which the delinquent

person concerned works."

In United Commercial Bank vs. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 Hon'ble Apex Court on review of a long line of cases and the principles of judicial review of administrative action under English law summarized the legal position in the following words:

"11. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not

interfere with the administrators' decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural

imp0ropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of

logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not

go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not

substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is judicial review is

limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision.

12. To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the

appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference.

Further, to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment

by recording cogent reasons in support thereof."

In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal position as follows:

"8. ……… The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of

disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds

the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved."

In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that:

"The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to

the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.

16. Hon'ble Apex Court in Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia M. Lad (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that

"The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review, the High

Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority,

and/or on appeal the appellate authority with regard to the imposition of punishment unless such

discretion suffers from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that would shock the

conscience of the court/tribunal. The exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment by the

disciplinary authority or appellate authority is dependent on host of factors such as gravity of

misconduct, past conduct, the nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the

position that the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be

maintained in the department or establishment he works. Ordinarily the court or the tribunal would

not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.

17. Moreover, the Banks being financial institution; where the hard earned money of the public at large is kept, and any disorderly atmosphere in the Bank premises may lead to loss to trust of the depositors on the Banking institution; which may ultimately lead to collapse of financial system of the country and the same is not permissible at all. Hon'ble Apex Court in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 721 has observed that:

"7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore the courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental inquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or findings, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations."

18. In the instant case, the workman was punished with the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Western Coalfield Ltd. vs Santosh Kumar and others 2018 LLR 764 has observed that hurling of filthy abusive language at a senior officer justifies dismissal; whereas in the present case, the workman had been punished with stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, probably the charges being partially proved. Therefore, under the facts and the circumstances of the case in hand and considering the laws pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts, there is no justification in interfering with the punishment imposed upon the workman. Accordingly, the workman is not entitled for any relief.

19. Award as above.

Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

LUCKNOW.

20th November, 2020

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 4 दिसम्बर, 2020

.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनाइटेड इंडिया इंशोरेंस कम्पनी लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र, संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकाराें के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 13/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04.12.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-17012/18/2006-आई आर (एम)]

नवीन वैद्य, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 4th December, 2020

S.O. 1068.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2007) of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.12.2020.

[No. L-17012/18/2006-IR(M)]

NAVIN VAIDYA, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 13/2007

Employer in relation to the management of United India Insurance Company Ltd, Muzaffarpur

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For Employer : Sri A.K. Sarkar, Advocate.

For workman : Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate.

State : Jharkhand. Industry:- Insurance Dated : 27.08.2020 AWARD

By Order No.L-17012/18/2006 (IR(M)) dated 13.02.2007, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of United India Insurance Company, Divisional Office,

Muzaffarpur in terminating and not reinstating and regularizing the services of Sh. Ashok

Kumar Jha, S/o Late Lakshmeswar Jha, Vill Nawelpur Mshihraulia, PO Siho, PS-Sakra, Distt.

Muzaffarpur without complying Section 25 F of the ID Act, 1947 is legal and or justified and

expedient? If not, what relief Sh. Ashok Kumar Jha is entitled to?"

2. The Tribunal in this matter has passed an award on 21/07/2014 holding that the action of the management of United India Insurance Company in terminating and not regularizing the service of Shri Ashok Kumar Jha S/o Late Lakshmeswar Jha is not legal and justified and therefore, the workman be regularized under the management in the lowest grade soon after the publication of the award in the official Gazette.

The management being aggrieved by the said award filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 6159/2015 before the Hon'ble Patna High Court Patna.

The Hon'ble Patna High Court, has been pleased to set aside the said award and remitted the matter to the Tribunal to dispose of the same afresh expeditiously.

3. After production of the order of Hon'ble Patna High Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6159/2015 both the parties were heard again.

4. The claim of the concerned workman Ashok Kumar Jha as per his written statement is as follows:-

That he had been appointed as sub-staff against permanent vacancy in September 1998 in United India Insurance Company, Divisional Office, Muzaffarpur and he had been working since 1998 with unblemished record of service with full satisfaction of the management but his service was terminated with effect from 28/07/2001 without following mandatory provision of law and principle of natural justice. He had discharged his duties for more than 240 days in attendance in every year which ipso facto shows that he was engaged against permanent vacancy and he acquired the status of permanent staff. He had represented before the management on several occasion for his proper designation and status as well as wages but unfortunately neither his representation was disposed of nor the same was rejected at any time. He had raised the dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Patna against his termination of service by the management but the matter was not settled. The management had exploited him and made discrimination against him by not maintaining statutory documents.

He has made a prayer to pass an Award with the direction to the management to reinstate and regularize his service from the date of his appointment with full back wages and other consequential benefits.

5. On the other hand the case of the management as per its written statement is as follows:-

That the concerned workman had never been appointed and included in the panel of staff of the Company at Divisional Office, Muzaffarpur. The management of United India Insurance Company is an undertaking of Govt. of India and has codified rules and established procedure for recruitment of sub-staff or anyone under the permanent establishment of the Company and the Divisional Manager, In-charge of the Division doesn't have any power or authority to induct any one even in the capacity of sub-staff. The concerned workman was not working as sub-staff against the permanent vacancy and he had never been inducted in the Company's pay-roll by issuing any valid appointment or authority, so the question of his termination does not arise. The concerned workman had never been employed or had been entrusted with any work, so question of assigning any reason or complying any mandatory provision of law does not arise. In absence of any valid employment, the retrenchment of concerned workman by the management does not arise. The concerned workman had never imparted his service even for a continued period of seven days, so the question of continuation of service for 240 days does not arise and subsequently non-compliance of section 25F and 25N of Industrial Dispute Act is also irrelevant. The concerned workman had neither been employee nor been terminated by the management, so the question of reinstatement and regularization of his service does not arise.

A prayer has been made to pass an Award in favour of the management.

6. The concerned workman has filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the management in which he has almost denied all the averments.

7. The concerned workman has examined only one witness. He is himself Ashok Kumar Jha. The WW-1 Ashok Kumar Jha has deposed before the Tribunal that the management had terminated him from his service with effect from 28/07/2001 and since then he was out of employment. He has also deposed that he had been appointed as sub-staff against permanent vacancy in September 1998 as per the provision of law and since then he had been working as sub-staff against permanent vacancy continuously. He has also stated that he had[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2020/अग्रहायण 21, 1942 3095 worked for more than 240 days in every year and he acquired the status of permanent staff but the management was paying less wages than the wages prescribed for sub-staff. He has also stated that he had demanded proper wages from the management but the management became annoyed and terminated his service illegally without following mandatory provision of law and principle of natural justice. He has also stated that the management had not issued any notice to him and had not paid any retrenchment compensation to him.

In the cross-examination he has stated that the documents filed by him had been signed and endorsed by Sri S.N. Rub, Kishori Choudhary, Anil Raj Singh and Dr. Joher. He has also deposed that all the Officers were working in the Divisional Office, Muzaffarpur from 1998 to 2001. He has further deposed that he had applied for the job after an advertisement found on the notice board of the Divisional Office and only on verbal interview he was appointed. He has further deposed that no appointment letter was given to him and he was terminated from his job in July 2001. He has further deposed that he has produced photo copy of salary slip voucher which are marked as W-1 series. He has further deposed that he had personally approached the Regional Office at Patna but he had not received any reply in writing.

8. The concerned workman has proved Photo Copy of receipts of payment made to him by United India Insurance Company ltd, Divisional Office, Muzaffarpur which are marked as Exhibit W-1 series (80 sheets)-

9. On the other hand the management has examined two witnesses. They are MW-1 Abhay Shankar and MW-2 Vijay Das.

10. The MW-1 Abhay Shankar has deposed that the concerned workman was never under any establishment of the Company, so he does not come under the ambit of the Industrial Dispute Act. He has also stated that the workman has not produced any iota of evidence substantiating his recruit in the capacity of class- IV employee and in absence of employer-employee relationship there is no existence of Industrial Dispute. He has also deposed that there is no material that the concerned workman was in continuous employment for a period of not less than one year and the concerned workman has not produced any appointment letter or document showing existence of any vacancy against which he was employed. He has further stated that the concerned workman has produced only the receipts of payment received for serving water to the employees of Muzaffarpur Division on payment of Rs. 25/- and there is no authentic document in support of the claim of the concerned workman. He has further stated that the Company is a public undertaking and it is bound by various rules and regulations in the matter of recruitment. He has also deposed that there are specific guidelines issued by the Company to all the Officers from refraining engagement of any person other than employee of the Company for performing of duties. He has further deposed that the payment receipts do not show the continuity of service for even a week, meaning thereby his services had been hired for five working days only, so in this way the continuity service of 240 days in a year is not established.

In the cross-examination he has deposed that he had seen all the payment receipts and payment had been made not for the service but for goods and articles. He has also stated that petty articles could be purchased without tender and he had not taken any receipt of the articles of petty nature articles purchased by the Company. He has also stated that expenditures are generally maintained in General Expenditure Register and he has not produced the General Expenditure Register of the Company before the Tribunal. He has also deposed that he has not produced attendance register of employees for the period 1998 to 2001 and the original receipts of the period 1988 to 2001 before the Tribunal. He has denied the suggestion that Ashok Kumar Jha had worked in Divisional Office of United India Insurance Company, Muzaffarpur from 1998 to 2001 and he had attended his office for 240 days in every year.

11. The MW-2 Vijay Das has deposed before the Tribunal that he was posted as Class-III employee at Muzaffarpur Divisional Office of the Company during the period of 1988 till his continuation of his tenure. He has also deposed that he had put his signature on the attendance register maintained for the attendance for Class- III and Class-IV employee of Division from the year 1988 to 2006 and he has proved attendance register for the period of January 1999 to December 2002 which has been marked as Exhibit M-1 series. He has also deposed that in the attendance register there is neither signature nor marking of attendance of the concerned workman. He has further stated that the concerned workman had neither been inducted nor his services were utilized by the Company. He has also deposed that the payment receipts had never been brought to his knowledge. He has also deposed that there was no vacancy of Class-IV staff in Divisional Office as per sanctioned strength.

In the cross-examination he has deposed that permanent employee of the Company used to mark their attendance on the attendance register. He has also stated that there was no certificate of any Officer of the Company on this register. He has also stated that on some pages there is signature of Competent Officer and on some pages there is no signature of Competent Authority. He has further deposed that this register has been prepared from original register. He has further deposed that the all the expenditure of the Company are3096 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] maintained in the ledger which is called SS2 register. He has also deposed that the attendance of daily wager are not marked on the attendance register, i.e. Exhibit M-1. He has also deposed that he has no knowledge whether the employees of daily wager were paid as per Minimum Wages Act or not. He has further deposed that Ashok Kumar Jha was seen in office time to time as a water supplier.

12. The management has proved photo copy of attendance register of class III and class IV employees of the period 04/01/1999 to 01/01/2003 of United India Insurance Company ltd, Divisional Office, Muzaffarpur which are marked as Exhibit M-1 series.

13. The learned lawyer of the workman has submitted before the Tribunal that the workman namely Ashok Kumar Jha was working in United India Insurance Company, Divisional Office, Muzaffarpur since September 1998 against a permanent vacancy but his service was terminated with effect from 28/07/2001without complying the provision of Section 25 F of I.D. Act. He has also argued that the concerned workman had submitted several representation before the management for his regularisation but no decision was taken on his representation, so he had been illegally and arbitrarily terminated from the service without complying principle of natural justice. He has made prayer for reinstatement of the concerned workman and payment of full back wages with consequential benefits.

14. On the other hand the learned lawyer of the management has submitted that the concerned workman had never been employed as a subordinate staff and there was no employer-employee relationship between the management and the concerned workman. He has also argued that the concerned workman was employed as a daily wager and he was paid accordingly. He has further submitted that there was no permanent vacancy of class-IV employees in the Company. He has also argued that there are rules and guidelines for recruitment of staff in the Company. He has lastly argued that there is no merit in this reference case and the case may be dismissed. He has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court as reported in 2019 LLR 969.

15. Now, the only point of consideration in this case is whether the action of the management of United India Insurance Company, Divisional Office, Muzaffarpur in terminating and not reinstating and regularizing the services of Sh. Ashok Kumar Jha without complying of section 25 F of I.D. Act is legal or justified and to what relief he is entitled.

FINDINGS

16. It is the claim of concerned workman namely Ashok Kumar Jha that he had been appointed as a sub- staff against permanent vacancy in United India Insurance Company, Divisional Office, Muzaffarpur in September 1998 but he was terminated from the service w.e.f. 28/07/2001 without following the provision of 25F of the I.D. Act.

It is further claim of concerned workman that a direction be issued to management for her reinstatement and regularization of his service will full back wages and consequential benefits.

17. On the other hand it is the case of the management that the concerned workman had never been appointed by the United India Insurance Company Divisional Office, Muzaffarpur as sub-staff and he had not served the Company continuously for 240 days in twelve calendar months, so there is question of his termination by the Company.

18. Now in the light of pleading of both the parties the Tribunal will examine the oral and documentary evidence available in the record.

19. The most competent witness in this is WW-1, Ashok Kumar Jha who has supported its case by stating therein that he had been appointed as sub-staff against the permanent vacancy in September,1998 as per provision of law and since then he had been working against permanent vacancy continuously but his service was terminated w.e.f. 28/07/2001 without following the mandatory provisions of law. He has also deposed that he had continuously worked in the Company for more than 240 days in every year. In the cross-examination he has admitted that no appointment letter was issued to him and he was paid his remuneration through receipts which are Exhibit –W-1 series.

The MW-1, Abhay Shankar in his evidence has deposed that the concerned workman has not produced any documents showing his appointment, and there is no material to show that the concerned workman was in continuous employment for a period of not less than one year. He has also deposed that the concerned workman has produced only receipt of payments and there is no authentic documents in support of his claim. He has also stated that the payment receipts only show the continuity of service for even a week meaning thereby that his service had been hired for five working days only. In the cross-examination he has deposed that the payment receipt was not only for the service but for the goods and articles.

The MW-2, Vijay Das has proved the photo copy register of attendance for class III and class IV employee of for the period of January, 1999 to 2002 and he has deposed that in the said attendance register there is neither signature nor signature mark of attendance of the concerned workman. He has also stated that the concerned workman had neither been inducted into service nor his services were utilized by the Company. In the Cross-examination he has deposed that the permanent employee of the Company used to mark their attendance on the register.

20. After analyzing documentary evidence it appears that the Exhibit W-1 series are the photo copy of receipts of payment of labour charge made to the concerned workman which are altogether eighty sheets in number. It further appears that all the receipts of payment are of labour charges of different years. It appears that the five payment receipts are of year 1998, forty payment receipts are of year 1999, thirty one payment receipts are of year 2000 and four payment receipts are of year 2001. It further appears that in most of the payment receipts it has been mentioned that payment had been made for serving water for four days or five days only at the rate of Rs. 25/- per day. Further after calculating the working of concerned workman it comes to about 24 days in 1998, 196 days in 1999, 143 days in 2000, and 18 days in 2001 Moreover the Exhibit W-1 series does not show that the concerned workman had worked in United India Insurance Company, Muzaffarpur for 240 days in twelve calendar months.

The M-1 series which is photocopy of attendance register of class III and class IV employee of Muzaffarpur Division of United India Insurance Company of period 04/01/1999 to 20/12/2002 and it does not show the name of concerned workman namely Ashok Kumar Jha as employee of the company and there is no mark of his attendance in the register.

21. Now in this case the concerned workman has not produced any appointment letter and in the cross- examination he has admitted that no appointment letter was issued to him by the United India Insurance Company. Further the concerned workman has not produced any documents showing advertisement issued by the United India Insurance Company for appointment on the post of sub-staff in the Company. Further the Exhibit W-1 series does not show that the concerned workman had continuously worked for 240 days in twelve calendar months. Additionally the concerned workman has not produced any document to show that there was any vacancy of sub staff and he had been appointed against the said permanent vacancy of the Company.

22. At this stage it is required to mention here that u/s 25B of I.D. Act there is definition of continuous service and u/s 25F of the I.D. Act conditions precedent to retrenchment of workman has been mentioned.

Section 25B of I.D. Act reads as follows:-

25-B. Definition of continuous service – For the purpose of this Chapter,-

(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;

(2) Where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-

(a) for a period one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than –

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

(b)…………………………………..

Further, Section 25F of the I.D. Act reads as follows:-

25-F Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen- No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-

(a) The workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for

retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such

notice, wages for the period of the notice:

(b) The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be

equivalent to fifteen days' average pay (for Every completed year of continuous service) or any

part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government (or such authority as

may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.)

23. Now in this case there is no documentary evidence that the concerned workman had worked for 240 days in twelve calendar months in United India Insurance Company Divisional Office, Muzaffarpur , so there is no continuous service of the concerned workman as per definition of continuous service mentioned in u/s 25B of the I.D. Act.

24. In view of above discussions the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the concerned workman had not worked continuously for 240 days in a twelve calendar months in a year, so he had not served the United India Insurance Company Divisional Office, Muzaffarpur continuously for not less than one year, so the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act is not applicable in this case.

25. Hence, the action of the management of United India Insurance Company Divisional Office, Muzaffarpur in terminating the service of concerned workman namely Ashok Kumar Jha is legal, justified and expedient.

26. Now, the next point of consideration in this case is whether the concerned workman is entitled for reinstatement and regularisation of service in United India Insurance Company, Divisional Office, Muzaffarpur?

27. In this regard the concerned workman WW-1, Ashok Kumar Jha has deposed that he had worked in the United India Insurance Company, Divisional Office, Muzaffarpur on his appointment as sub staff against permanent vacancy in September , 1998 and had worked continuously and regularly till his termination on 28/07/2001.

On the other hand MW-1, Abhay Shankar has deposed that concerned workman had never been appointed as sub staff in the office of the United India Insurance Company, Divisional Office, Muzaffarpur and he had been hired for five working days in a week only.

Further the MW-2, Vijay Das who has proved the attendance register of class-III and class-IV employees of Divisional Office, Muzaffarpur for the period of January 1999 to December 2002 has deposed that there is no mark of attendance of concerned employee on the aforesaid register.

28. Moreover the Exhibit W-1 series are the payment receipt for the year 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 for serving water for four or five days at the rate Rs. 25/- per day. Further the M-1 series does not show the name of the concerned workman on the attendance register the period January 1999 to December 2002.

29. It is required to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. Dan Bahadur Singh, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 207, has been pleased to hold as under:-

"14. The next question which requires consideration is whether completion of 240 days in a year confers any right on an employee or workman to claim regularisation in service. In Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad vs. Anil Kumar Mishra it was held that the completion of 240 days' work does not confer the right to regularisation under the Industrial Disputes Act. It merely imposes certain obligations on the employer at the time of termination of the services. In M.P. Housing Board vs. Manoj Shrivastava (para 17) after referring to several earlier decisions it has been reiterated that it is well settled that only because a person had been working for more than 240 days, he does not derive any legal right to be regularised in serivee. This view has been reiterated in Gangadhar Pillai vs. Siemens Ltd. The same question has been examined in considerable detail with reference to an employee working in a government company in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Workmen and paras 34 and 35 of the report are being reproduced below:( 2007 (1) SCC p.408)

"34. Thus, it is well settled that there is no right vested in any daily wager to seek regularisation.

Regularisation can only be done in accordance with the rules and not dehors the rules. In the case of E.

Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala this Court held that there can be no regularisation dehors the rules. The

same view was taken in Kishore (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra and Union of India v. Bishamber Dutt. The

direction issued by the services Tribunal for regularising the services of persons who had not been

appointed on regular basis in accordance with the rules was set aside although the petitioner had been

working regularly for a long time.

35. In Surinder Singh Jamwal (Dr.) v. State of J&K it was held that ad hoc appointment does not give any

right for regularization as regularization is governed by the statutory rules.""

30. The Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court has been pleased to observe in L.P.A No. 268/2012 which is as under:-

"(xiv) Be that as it may, even assuming without admitting that this appellant has worked more than 240

days in couple of years, then also, his services cannot be regularized. 240 days' working is not a magic

bond which converts illegal appointment into the legal appointment. In fact, 240 days working has

nothing to do with the regularization at all. 240 days working has got reference under Section 25-B of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for calculation of continuous years of service and nothing beyond that.

Unnecessarily several times the Labour Court or the Industrial Courts are committing an error that if any

worker has completed 240 days, their services should be regularized. In fact, there is no casual

connection at all between the working of 240 days and right of regularization. Illegality in the

appointment cannot be diluted by the working of 240 days. Illegality in the appointment continues, even if,

the worker has worked for 240 days."

The Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court has been further pleased to hold as follows:-

"Whenever any employment is given unauthorizedly, in the respondent-UCO Bank, Hirapur, Dhanbad,

such type of employment cannot be converted into a regular employment unless there are rules for

regularization or scheme for regularization. In the facts of the present case, there are no rules of

regularization nor there is any scheme of regularization floated by the UCO Bank. In absence of such

type of law, the charity shown by the Court will be cruelty to others. If such type regularization is allowed

by the Courts, it will provide encouragement to those who are adorning high-ranking administrative

position to give illegal appointment and later on, to get them regularized by the orders of the Courts. A

thing which cannot be done directly, can never be done indirectly. If no employment can be given without

there being any advertisement and without there being any recruitment process, the Court cannot be a

party to illegal regularization of such employee."

31. It is relevant to mention here that it has already been held by this Tribunal that the concerned workman had not worked for 240 days in twelve calendar months in the United India Insurance Company, Divisional Office, Muzaffarpur.

32. In view of such fact and in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court it is settled that the concerned workman namely Ashok Kumar Jha even, if he would had worked for 240 days in twelve calendar months, is not entitled for reinstatement and regularization of his service in United India Insurance Company, Divisional Office, Muzaffarpur.

33. Hence, the following Award is rendered:-

"The action of the management of United India Insurance Company, Divisional Office, Muzaffarpur was justified in terminating and not reinstating and regularizing the services of the concerned workman namely Sri Ashok Kumar Jha as mentioned in the schedule of reference without complying section 25 of the I.D. Act 1947 is legal, justified and expedient . Consequently the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief."

This is the Award of this Tribunal.

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.