THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 1677 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner has prayed that directions be issued to the respondents to regularise his services as an attender. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as temporary attender on 02.01.1989 and continued to work with the respondent- State Bank of Hyderabad for a period of fourteen years. It is stated that the Branch Manager of the bank recommended to the Regional Manager vide memo No.F/Staff/398 dated 31.01.1996 for absorption of the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner has submitted numerous representations to the respondent-bank for his absorption into service. The respondents took no action to regularise the services of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the long service rendered by the petitioner in the respondent-bank, he is entitled to be regularised. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein the averment of the petitioner that he was appointed as temporary attender on 02.01.1989 has been denied. It has been averred that the petitioner has never been appointed as temporary attender and has not put in fourteen years of service. It has further been averred that the petitioner has been working on day-to-day basis for transmission of postal correspondence from one branch to another of the respondent-bank and was paid Rs.50/- per day. The particulars of attendance of the petitioner on day-to-day basis as per the counter-affidavit since February 2003 are as follows: February, 2003 NIL September, 2003 21 days March, 2003 3 days October, 2003 24 days April, 2003 6 days November, 2003 20 days May, 2003 6 days December, 2003 25 days June, 2003 6 days January, 2004 24 days July, 2003 11 days February, 2004 NIL August, 2003 21 days Learned counsel for the respondents submits that even prior to 2003, the petitioner worked occasionally on daily wage basis and is not entitled for regularisation. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has not placed any material before this Court to show that he was appointed as attender on temporary basis in 1989 and that by virtue of the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner is being continued. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. From a perusal of the material papers filed before this Court, it is clear that the petitioner has not placed any material to show that he has been working as an attender on temporary basis since 1989. Apart from the same, the petitioner has not placed any material to show that he has worked for a period of almost fourteen years up to the year 2003. All the averments made by the petitioner are bald assertions and not supported by any material. Moreover, no circular of the bank is placed on record to show that the petitioner is entitled for regularisation. Resultantly, no relief can be granted to petitioner. The services of the petitioner are not liable to be regularised. Nevertheless, as the petitioner has worked with the respondent-bank for sufficiently long period by virtue of the directions issued by this Court on daily wage basis, the respondent-bank may consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dt. 20.10.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 1677 of 2004 Dt. 20.10.2011