THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.10322 & 3919 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions are interrelated. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in W.P.No.10322 of 2008. The petitioner joined as N.M.R. in Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam on 07.12.1981. He was absorbed as regular N.M.R. on 11.06.1982. Through resolution, dated 23.03.1990, the Board of the T.T.D. Employees Cooperative Bank Limited (for short ‘the Bank’) absorbed the petitioner and similarly placed persons as Assistants. Respondent No.3 (petitioner in W.P.No.3919 of 2008) was appointed as N.M.R. by the Bank in 1986 and was absorbed as Assistant on 10.09.1992. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in W.P.No.10322 of 2008. Through a memo, dated 29.02.1996, the Bank upgraded the Assistants as Lower Division Clerks, in the pay scale of Rs.1745/- to 3420/-. The petitioner and respondent No.3 figured therein. Through a memo, dated 03.03.2004, the Bank regularized the services of respondent No.3 with probationary rights with effect from 10.09.1992 in the cadre of Junior Assistant. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. He contends that in the feeder cadre, he has been appointed long before respondent No.3 came to be appointed and there was absolutely no justification for the Bank in regularizing the services of respondent No.3 before his services are regularized. He seeks a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to regularize his services with effect from the date of his initial appointment as N.M.R. Respondent No.3 seeks a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider his case for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. The respondents filed counter-affidavits in the writ petitions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent No.3. The petitioner and respondent No.3 have been upgraded as Lower Division Clerks through the memo, dated 29.02.1996. If what is stated by the petitioner is true, his entry into the services of the Bank is far earlier, when compared to the entry of respondent No.3. The employees from different sources were upgraded to the post of Lower Division Clerks, vide Memo, dated 29.02.1996. The Bank is under obligation to fix the inter se seniority of all the employees who were upgraded through the said memo. It is only after the seniority is fixed, that the further steps such as effecting promotions, need to be undertaken. Declaration of probation is another aspect. They cannot single out the persons, who were upgraded through the same order, in the context of up-gradation. If any of them is overlooked, the Bank is under obligation to assign reasons and communicate the same to the affected persons. Hence, the writ petitions are disposed of, directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take immediate steps for fixation of seniority among the Lower Division Clerks, who were upgraded to that post, through memo, dated 29.02.1996. They shall also maintain parity in the context of regularization of services with probationary rights and to communicate the reasons, in case any Lower Division Clerk is overlooked. This exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Promotions to the higher posts shall be affected only after the seniority is fixed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:01.07.2010 kdl