IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 10803 of 2004 Between: N. Suryanarayana Murthy, s/o N. Venkateswarulu, R/o. 5-181, Ramanaiahpeta Kirlampudi, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, A.P. Hyderabad. 2 The District Cooperative Central Bank, Eluru, rep by its Person- in-chage cum District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru. 3 The District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Eluru, West Godavari District, rep by its General Manager .....RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or direction, directing the respondents to absorb and regulize the petitioner as Attender in the 2nd respondent Bank on for with the other writ petitioners in W.P.No. 18323 of 1989 and allow all consequential benefits and grant Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to absorb and regularize the petitioner as Attender in the second respondent’s bank on par with other petitioners in W.P. No.18323 of 1989 and allow all consequential benefits. According to the averments of the petition, the case of the petitioner is that he had worked as an Attender (NMR) in the second respondent’s bank. He along with others filed W.P. No.18323 of 1989 for regularization of their services. In the said writ petition a direction was issued that the petitioner Nos.40 to 100 therein shall be regularized in the existing and future vacancies. Accordingly, the petitioner herein requested to implement the direction issued in the said writ petition and so far he was not given any benefit. All other petitioners in the said writ petition were regularized in the service with effect from 01-01-1990. He also submitted that he made several representations seeking benefit of regularization in service and finally he got issued a legal notice dated 30-05-2004 seeking to consider his case on par with other petitioners in the said writ petition. Though the respondents received the legal notice, neither they replied nor considered the case of the petitioner. In view of the same he constrained to file the instant petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 and perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though several petitioners were the parties in W.P. No.18323 of 1989, whose services were regularized with effect from 01-01-1990, but the case of the petitioner was not considered. Therefore, he submitted that a direction may be issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that though the petitioner herein had worked for some time in the respondent’s bank he has not complied with the conditions for regularization. Therefore, his case is not considered. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though there is a specific direction from this Court in W.P. No.18323 of 1989 to regularize the petitioner Nos.40 to 100 and the petitioner herein is one among them, the respondent authorities are not considering his case on par with other petitioners in the said petition. From a perusal of the record, it is a case of 2004 and this Court on 06-07-2004 issued Rule nisi. But so far the respondents did not choose to file counter, though this Court granted time to file counter. Learned standing counsel except stating that the petitioner did not comply with the conditions he did not choose to file written counter that what are the conditions that the petitioner did not comply with. In view of the same, I am of the considered opinion that unless and until the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the writ petition are controverted by filing specific counter, no orders can be passed on the merits of the case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption and regularization of his services, in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH 12-06-2008 LSK