THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2826 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner joined the service of the Andhra Bank-1st respondent in the year 1995 as a sub-staff purely on adhoc basis. He was posted in he Khazipet branch. There existed a scheme for absorption of sub-staff into the regular service of the bank. The petitioner submitted an application for extension of that benefit. The Branch Manager is said to have been forwarded the case of the petitioner to the administration of the bank. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not extended the benefit of absorption to him, though he has put in fairly good length of service. He seeks appropriate directions in this regard. 2. On behalf of respondents a counter affidavit is filed. They stated that a settlement was arrived at between the administration of the bank, on the one hand, and Employees Union on the other on 09.01.1995. It is to the effect that such of the sub-staff who have been engaged on temporary basis between 01.01.1982 and 31.12.1989 shall be entitled to be absorbed. It is urged that since the petitioner joined the service in the year 1995, he is not covered by the scheme. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 4. It is not in dispute that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on temporary basis. As the law stands now, no temporary employee can claim the absorption into regular service as of right. A settlement was arrived at between the Bank and its Employees Union on 09.01.1995. However, that covers the case of those temporary employees, who joined the service of the Bank between 01.01.1982 and 31.12.1989. The petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of absorption, since he joined service only in the year 1995. Therefore, the relief claimed for in the Writ Petition cannot be granted. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are attempting to dispense with the service of the petitioner, even while others similarly situated are being continued. Such a discriminatary treatment cannot be accorded to the petitioner. 6. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that in case, any temporary sub-staff appointed along with the petitioner, or subsequent thereto, is being continued, the petitioner shall also be continued on the same terms. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 20th January, 2011 VJL/KTL