THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 20764 of 2000 And W.P.No. 22061 of 2000 27-12-2007 W.P.No. 20764 of 2000 Between:- D. Hari Prasad and others. Petitioners And Andhra Bank, Rep., by Chairman & Managing Director, Head Office, Dr. Pattabhi Bhavan, Secretariat Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad-500 004 and another. Respondents. W.P.No. 22061 of 2000 Between: Kollimarla Srihari and others. And Andhra Bank, Rep., by Chairman & Managing Director, Head Office,Dr. Pattabhi Bhavan, Secretariat Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad-500 004 and another. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 20764 of 2000 And W.P.No. 22061 of 2000 Oral Common Order: These two writ petitions are instituted initially by 123 and 126 petitioners respectively who are employed as temporary subordinate staff (sub-staff) with the first respondent-bank. The petitioners claim to have served as such in various spells for over a decade each. Some of the petitioners have in the interim withdrawn from the lis. The writ petitions were accordingly dismissed as regards those petitioners. A memorandum of settlement was arrived at under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) between the Management of the respondent-bank and the All India Andhra Bank Award Employees Union regarding empanelment and absorption of temporary candidates into the subordinate cadre of the Bank. Various schemes for absorption of temporary candidates is spelt out in this settlement. In paragraph No.7 of the settlement a procedure is set out for absorption of these temporary candidates who have completed 240 days of service in twelve (12) consecutive months. The petitioners claim absorption under this clause. As per paragraph No.7 of the settlement, notwithstanding the provisions of Clause 8 (D), all temporary candidates who have completed 240 days of service in any twelve (12) consecutive months between 01-01-1982 and 16-12-1991 in the Bank shall be absorbed into the permanent service of the Bank as and when vacancies are identified by the Bank in the concerned districts, but such candidates would not be entitled for arrears of wages nor back-dated weightage in seniority. The proviso to paragraph No.7 clarifies that the absorption of such candidates under the settlement would be taken up only after absorption of candidates who are already regularly empanelled after being sponsored by the concerned district Employment Exchange, which comprises those who had already put in 240 days of service in any 12 consecutive months ending 16-12-1991. Paragraph 8 of the settlement spells out the procedure for empanelment and absorption. Paragraph No.8 (c) of the settlement on which considerable emphasis is laid by the petitioners provides as under: 8 (c) “The bank will engage the service of the empanelled candidates under this settlement along with already existing panel candidates, if any, in leave vacancies in their respective districts by rotation for a maximum period of 30 days at a stretch till such time, the scope for their absorption arises.” The respondent-bank has issued (the impugned) circular dated 12-10-2000 advising all branches and offices to forthwith dispense with the services of the temporary sub-staff appointed at the branches/offices except in cases where the matter is subjudice. Apprehending consequent disengagement from service, the writ petitions are filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in dispensing with the services of the petitioners and not continuing and absorbing them into regular service, is illegal and contrary to the scheme formulated by the respondents under the settlement dated 09-01-1995. The petitioners assert that the settlement is binding between the parties, under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. The Chief Manager, Personnel Department of the respondent-bank has filed a counter affidavit dated 24-10- 2007. Herein it is pleaded that for recruitment of subordinate staff and part-time Sweeper categories, the Bank used to place indents to the District Employment Exchange concerned in respect of vacancies identified in the branches in the districts and thereafter select and appoint those candidates sponsored by the employment exchange. Contrary to the above procedure, in exigencies of work and wherever there is increase in workload or on occasions when permanent employees proceeded on leave, the Managers of the Branches used to engage persons to cope up with the increased workload or to fill up leave vacancies, on temporary basis. This resulted in industrial disputes claiming regularization of services. This was a circumstance endemic to all branches of several banks throughout the country. As a consequence, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance in consultation with the Ministry of Labour evolved an approach paper to deal with the problem of temporary employees working in Public Sector Banks as ‘one time measure’. A scheme was evolved and thereafter applications were called for from those temporary employees who had put in a minimum service of 90 days or more in the bank on or after 01-01-1982, for absorption into regular service. Insofar as the respondent-bank is concerned, a settlement was entered into with the recognized union during the course of conciliation proceedings, on 09-01- 1995. Earlier to the settlement, there were a few panels of temporary sub staff in certain regions/zones/districts in the State which got merged with the panels prepared in terms of the settlement dated 09-01-1995. According to the terms of this settlement, the respondent-bank would utilize the services of the empanelled temporary sub-staff initially in leave vacancies as and when they arise in the branches in the district to which they belong. The bank would consider regularization of the services of temporary sub-staff only as and when regular vacancies arise in the district concerned as per their seniority in the panel and subject to the rules regarding reservations for SC/ST/OBC/PH/XM. The Bank admits in the counter that in view of Clause 4 of the Settlement dated 09-01-1995 the panels prepared are valid until all the empanelled candidates are absorbed and the panel would not lapse. The Bank asserts in paragraph No.8 of the counter that it has been utilizing the services of the empanelled temporary employees in leave vacancies as and when they arise on rotation basis; and that without adopting the method of rotation, the respondent bank would not be able to utilize the services of all these temporary employees in leave vacancies. The employment on the rotation method enables equitable employment to all temporary sub-staff who are empanelled without creating arbitrary or select opportunities to a few of them while depriving others of casual employment, in view of the restricted number of leave vacancies available vis-à-vis the number of temporary sub-staff, is the contention and the pleading on behalf of the bank in the counter affidavit. It is also admitted that the petitioners are on the panel of temporary sub-staff of Guntur, Chittor, Krishna, West Godavari and Prakasham districts. The panels were prepared in terms of the settlement dated 09-01-1995. The counter disputes the petitioners’ claim for absorption out of turn and contends that they would be considered for absorption as and when vacancies arise and after keeping the constitutional requirement component of reservations for SC/ST/OBC and the like and in their turn only. In paragraph 10 of the counter it is also stated that a number of petitioners had been absorbed and the rest are yet to be absorbed and on the arisal of vacancies. It is stated that there are 94 candidates remaining in the panels including some of the petitioners. These candidates would be considered for absorption as and when vacancies arise in the respective districts. The challenge to the impugned circular dated 12-10-2000 is defended. The bank contends that the circular is in no way subversive to the terms of the settlement arrived at. The circular is not intended to dispense with the services of empanelled temporary sub staff irrespective of the availability of leave vacancies. The circular is only directed at ensuring dispensing with the services of those temporary empanelled sub-staff, who cannot be continued in a leave or casual vacancy, in terms of clause 8 (c) of the Settlement dated 09-01-1995. Sri G.S. Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions has sought to persuade this Court that in the evolution of the jurisprudence of regularization (of temporary public sector employees) spelt out through a catena of precedents including Dheerendra Chemoli vs. State of U.P and others1 and the later decisions in Mineral Exploration Corpn., Employees’ Union v. Mineral Exploration Corpon., Ltd.,2 , the principle that continuing casual employees in casual status for interminably long periods constitutes arbitrary conduct by public employers and that a scheme for regularization of such casual employment is the constitutional imperative. The principle propounded by Sri Rao is not an absolute principle as is apparent from the detailed analysis of the balancing of legal and constitutional priorities spelt out in Secretary, State of Karnakata & Ors., v. Umadevi & Ors.,3. The requirement of a transparent public employment recruitment process is an obligation flowing the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 is as imperative a socital value as is the provision for a security of tenure for persons in long employment on a precarious tenure in public institution. How the balancing of these different and apparently conflicting values must be activated is spelt out in Umadevi’s case (3 supra). Mineral Exploration Corporation case (2 supra) is a decision on the specific facts of the case and neither spells out nor is intended to spell out a principle at variance with the Constitution Bench judgment in Uma Devi’s case (3 supra). In any event, this analysis is inapposite in this case and wholly unwarranted, as the petitioners claim entitlement to absorption and continuance in service on the basis of a settlement between the employer-bank and the Union, dated 09-01-1995. They do not seek in these writ petitions reliefs independent of the settlement. They seek reliefs under it. The settlement itself is the product of an acknowledgement of fair employment and recruitment procedures by the respondent-bank which has done the balancing act as best appealed to its policy evaluators. This resulted in the settlement dated 09-01-1995. Clause 8 (c) of the settlement on which considerable reliance is placed by Sri G.S. Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners does not guarantee continuous or uninterrupted employment to empanelled temporary sub-staff, irrespective of the availability of leave vacancies nor does paragraph No.7 of the settlement, which is the basis for the petitioners claim for instantaneous absorption, promise immediate creation and sanction of posts for instantaneous absorption of all the empanelled temporary sub-staff. 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. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 27-12-2007 pvks 1 1986 (1) SCC 637 2 2006 (6) Supreme 281. 3 2006 (3) Supreme 415