IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 21273 of 2000 Between: 1 V.Vykuntarao, S/o. Late Narasimhamurthy, Rural Credit Branch, Srikakulam, D.No.11-8-88, Srikakulam-1. The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn in respect of P- Nos.1,2,3&5 as per Court Order dt.7-6-2001 in WP 21273/00 2 B.Appalaraju, S/o. Late Buttayya, Amadalavalasa Branch, 7-1-119, Mahangi Street, Amadalavalasa- 532185, Srikakulam District. The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn in respect of P- Nos.1,2,3&5 as per Court Order dt.7-6-2001 in WP 21273/00 3 V.Harinadharao, S/o. Satyarao, Etcherla Branch, Akkivalasa Village, Amandalavalasa (PO) RS, Srikakulam District-532185. The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn in respect of P- Nos.1,2,3&5 as per Court Order dt.7-6-2001 in WP 21273/00 4 D. Mukhalingeswararao, S/o. Lae Sankaracharyulu, Srikakulam, 8-12-18, Ananthapalli Stret, Srikakulam (PO & District). 5 K.Suribabu, S/o. Late Gopalam, C/o. P.Appalaraju, 6-9/1-3, Kella Street, Near Krishnapark, Srikakulam District. The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn in respect of P- Nos.1,2,3&5 as per Court Order dt.7-6-2001 in WP 21273/00 ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The General Manager (HRD), ANDHRA BANK, Head Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500 004. 2 The Deputy General Manager (HRD), ANDHRA BANK, Head Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500 004. 3 The Zonal Manager, ANDHRA BANK, Zonal Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam-13. .....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 issue an order, direction or a Writ one in the nature of 'MANDAMUS' declaring the action of the respondents in not regularising the services of the Petitioners in their respective posts in the category of Sub-staff in violation of the settlements entered into with the recognised unions from time to time with regard to regularisation of sub-staff existing in the organisation of ANDHRA BANK as illega, arbitrary and violation of Section 12(3) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Consequently direct the respondents to regularise the services of the Petitioners in the posts in the category of sub-staff in the respondents organisation of Andhra Bank with the suitable scale of pay attached to it along with arrears of salaries, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits for which the petitioners are all other attendant benefits for which the petitioners are entitled to, and costs of this Writ Petition, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.SRINIVASA SARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.: DR.K.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 21273 of 2000 ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in identical circumstances W.P.Nos.20764 and 22061 of 2000 were disposed of by this Court by order dated.27-12-2007 holding as under:- “On a true and fair construction of the settlement, in particular paragraph Nos. 7 and 8, it is clear that the panel to be prepared is a panel that is to operate till the absorption of the last of the empanelled candidates. It is also clear that absorption would be as and when vacancies in sanctioned posts arise. The settlement neither expressly nor by any compelling implication warrant or obligate the creation of new posts or sanction of new posts to forthwith accommodate all temporary empanelled employees. Paragraph No.8 (c) of the settlement as already stated, does not obligate the bank to continue any casual empanelled temporary sub-staff (empanelled in terms of paragraph No.7 of the settlement) until absorption into regular vacancies. Paragraph 8 (c) merely ensures that the bank should employee the empanelled temporary sub-staff proportionate to the availability of leave vacancies and on rotation. In the affidavit in opposition filed in these writ petitions, the bank has clearly and categorically admitted its obligation to continue in temporary service those empanelled candidates who are yet to be absorbed subject to availability of leave vacancies and on rotation basis. The bank has also pleaded that the rotational methodology is adopted to ensure equitable opportunity to all the empanelled sub staff, as the availability of leave vacancies is lesser than the number of temporary sub- staff available for such casual engagement. The bank’s counter affidavit also states that the impugned circular dated 12-10- 2000 is not intended to be in subversion of any of the bank’s obligations under the settlement dated 09-01-1995. In the circumstances above, there appears no basis for the apprehension of the petitioners that they would not be absorbed in terms of the settlement dated 09-01-1995 or would be disengaged forthwith irrespective of the availability of leave vacancies in the districts to which each of the petitioners respectively belong. The petitioners claim for immediate absorption has also no basis in the settlement. For all these reasons, there are no merits in the writ petition. Recording the averments, admissions and statements made by the respondent-Andhra Bank in the counter affidavit, as have been extracted above, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.” Since the petitioners herein are also similarly situated this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above order. No costs. --------------- G.ROHINI,J 21st APRIL 2008 mrb