IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1634 of 2010 THE STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS Versus RAJ KUMAR RAM 3 17.1.2011 Heard Mr. Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant Bank and Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the sole respondent. The sole respondent was engaged as Sweeper in the State Bank of India in the year 1991. Earlier he was being paid Rs.4/- per day but now he is getting Rs.1050/- consolidated for each month. In the writ petition he prayed for a direction to the respondent Bank to consider his case for regularization on the post of Sweeper in view of his continuance in the Bank since 1991. The court observed that it is not possible to issue any direction to the Bank to regularize him on the post of Sweeper. However, this court directed that as and when the appointment for the post of Sweeper would be considered, the case of the writ petitioner would also be considered along with others. Counsel for the appellants submits that the order in question is a blanket order and direct for the appointment of the writ petitioner on the post of Sweeper. - 2 - KHAN We do not agree with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant Bank that the order in question is a blanket order. This court has merely directed the Bank to consider the case of the writ petitioner on the post of Sweeper along with others as and when the Bank proceeds to make such appointment in the light of the representation dated 2.1.2009. In this view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Besides this, I.A.No.8998 of 2010 has been filed for condonation of 236 days in filing of the appeal. We are not satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the Interlocutory Application for condoning the delay. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, both the I.A.No.8998 of 2010 and the main appeal is dismissed. (S.K.Katriar,J) (S.P.Singh,J)