THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.No.25053 of 2000 (Dated : 15-06-2011) Between: Mohd.Naseem Pasha ...Petitioner and 1. The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Manthani, Karimnagar Dt. And others ….Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.No.25053 of 2000 ORDER: The petitioner joined as a Casual Labourer in the 1st respondent - Bank on 09.05.1991. He claims to have worked as a temporary sub-staff from 1991 to 2000. He sought for regularization of his services. There being no response from the respondents’ bank, he approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and filed the present writ petition seeking regularization of his services. The respondents filed the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner did not work as a temporary sub- staff in the respondents - bank for the stipulated minimum period of 90 days during the period from 01.01.1982 to 31.12.1989. It is also stated that a Settlement was arrived at between the administration of the bank, on the one hand, and the employees Union, on the other, on 09.01.1995. It is to the effect that such of the sub-staff who have been engaged on temporary basis between 01.01.1982 and 31.12.1989 shall be entitled to be absorbed. It is urged that since the petitioner joined the service on 09.05.1991, he is not entitled for the benefits conferred under the Approach Paper and the Settlement dated 09.01.1995. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the subject matter of the writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment dated 02.12.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.No.20161 of 2000. The factual aspect has not been contradicted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. It is not in dispute that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on temporary basis. As the law stands now, no employee can claim the absorption into regular service as of right. A settlement was arrived at between the bank and its employees on 09.01.1995. However, that covers the case of those temporary employees, who joined the service of the bank between 01.01.1982 and 31.12.1989. The petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of absorption, since he joined service only in the year 1991. Therefore, the relief claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted. The similar issue came up for consideration in W.P.No.1286 of 2004 dated 16.07.2004. The result portion of the order in the sad writ petition reads as under: “As the petitioner was admittedly not employed at all in the Andhra Bank during the period 01.01.1982 to 31.12.1989, he is not qualified for empanelment in terms of the settlement dated 19.01.1995. He does not also have any preferential right for casual employment as against persons empanelled in terms of the above settlement read with the specifications in the approach paper. His claim for the benefits of the provisions of Sections 25 G and H of the Act would tenure only after the empanelled candidates, as above, are engaged by the bank for casual employment” In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing that in case, any temporary sub-staff appointed along with the petitioner, or subsequent thereto, is being continued, the petitioner shall also be continued on the same terms. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.15th June, 2011 Note: Issue CC in two days (B/O) PNV