IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2010 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26693 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHYJU E.P., S/O.KUNHIKANNAN P.V., USHASS (HOUSE), NEDUMGOME P.O., SREEKANDAPURAM VIA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, H.R.DEPARTMENT, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE BUILDINGS, S.S.KOVIL ROAD, THAMBANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, H.R.DEPARTMENT, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE BUILDINGS, S.S.KOVIL ROAD, THAMBANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. ADV.P.V.SURENDRANATH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.26693 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 8th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a contract employee of the State Bank of India, who was appointed as Rural Marketing and Recovery Officer. After working for some time, he resigned from the post. Subsequently, the bank took a policy decision to absorb competent among the persons working as Rural Marketing and Recovery Officers in regular service. The petitioner seeks similar relief in this writ petition. 2. The learned standing counsel for the bank submits that the decision was to absorb only competent among those persons in service as on the date of the policy decision and the petitioner had resigned from service much prior to that decision and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for absorption. He also points out that this issue is squarely covered by a decision a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C). Nos.24969/2010 & 25036/2010. 3. I have heard both parties. 4. In W.P.(C).No.24969/2010 and the connected case, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held as follows: “The petitioners submit that they were engaged by the respondent Bank on contract basis as Officers - Marketing and Recovery - Farm Sector, which was later redesignated as Officer Marketing and Recovery (Rural). According to the petitioners, the Bank is going to regularise such contract appointees and therefore, their services also should be regularised. w.p.c.26693/10 2 2. However, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank points out that the Scheme contemplates regularisation of only those who are in service as on 14/07/2010. According to him, the petitioners have resigned from the services of the Bank long before that date, and therefore, the Scheme does not apply to the petitioners. Since the facts are as stated by the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank, the petitioners cannot claim coverage of the Scheme for regularisation. If that be so, this Court will not be justified in directing consideration of their claims made in the representations. The writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed.” I fully agree with the said decision. Therefore, following that decision, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge