THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No.9698 of 2000 Date: 22.07.2010 Between: R. Srinivas … Petitioner AND Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Rep.by its Chairman and M.D., Kothagudem, Khammam District and 3 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P. No.9698 of 2000 ORDER: The petitioner challenges the action of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited (for brevity ‘the Company’), Kothagudem, in not considering his case for regularization as a Clerk in terms of the Settlement dated 31.07.1997 and seeks a consequential direction to the Company to regularize his services as a Clerk in preference to Junior Acting Clerks with consequential benefits. The petitioner joined the service of the Company on 13.11.1992 as a Badli Filler. He claims to have discharged the duties of an Acting Clerk with effect from May, 1993. In the Settlement dated 31.07.1997 arrived at by and between the Company and its workmen, the issue of regularization of Acting Clerks was also resolved. 181 posts of clerks were agreed to be filled from amongst the Acting Clerks in order of seniority through assessment reports and interviews. The grievance of the petitioner is that contrary to the same, the Company was resorting to selection based on comparative merit assessment by giving preference to juniors who had better qualifications. The petitioner also assails the proceedings dated 18.05.2000 issued by the Company directing reversion of those Acting Clerks who were not selected and regularized as Clerks. In its counter, the Company stated that as per the terms of the Settlement dated 31.07.1997 only those employees who had acted as Clerks continuously for not less than three years as on 03.10.1996 were eligible for regularization in those posts. The Company stated that the petitioner started acting as a Clerk only in November, 1993 and therefore did not fulfil the condition prescribed in the Settlement dated 31.07.1997. Reference is made to the application submitted by the petitioner in September 1997 wherein the petitioner is said to have stated that he was acting as a Clerk since 05.11.1993 and requesting consideration of his case under the Settlement dated 31.07.1997. Though this counter was filed as long back as July, 2002, the petitioner did not choose to refute these averments by way of a reply affidavit. It must therefore be accepted that the petitioner started acting as a Clerk only from November, 1993. In that view of the matter, he did not fulfil the requirement of having worked for three years as Acting Clerk before the cut off date and was not eligible for regularization as a Clerk in terms of the Settlement dated 31.07.1997. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 22.07.2010 Isn