IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 19444 of 2003 Between: Yendamuri Venkateswara Rao S/o Ramulu State Bank of India, Eluru. West Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State Bank of India, Hyderabad Rep. by its Chief General Manager 2 The State Bank of India, Eluru, West Godavari District rep. by its Branch Manager .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to absorb me as a regular employee in tune with the approach papers of the Government of India and also as per sections 25G and 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as well as Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.S.K.RATHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.B.G.RAVINDER REDDY The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents to absorb the petitioner as a regular employee in tune with the policy of Government of India and also as per Section 25G and 25H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It appears, petitioner worked for 92 days in between 1975 and 1981 and 95 days during the period from 1.4.1984 to July 1985. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner along with others were sought to be terminated abruptly, therefore Union has entered into an agreement with the Bank for absorption of certain employees by empanelling them (as per their number of working days). The learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that a list of such persons was prepared and petitioner stood at serial No.566 in the said list and as per the agreement, 226 persons were absorbed and in the meanwhile, panel lapsed on 31.3.1996, therefore petitioner’s case was not considered for absorption and many of his seniors were also denied employment on the ground of panel lapsed. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 1.4.2008 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.19444 of 2003 1.4.2008