IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:8975 of 1999 Between: Guvvala Rama Reddy S/o Abbulu, R/o Gandepally, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The General Manager, District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd., Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2 The Branch Manager, The District Co-operative Central Bank Limited , Gandepalli, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. V.VIDYULLATHA DASYAM FOR MR.D.S.N.V.PRASAD BABU Counsel for the Respondents:MR. SRINIVAS BASAVA FOR MR.S.SRINIVAS REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner as Peon on regular basis, as illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioner also sought for a direction to the respondents to appoint him as Peon on regular basis with the pay scale. Heard Ms. V.Vidyullatha Dasyam, learned counsel representing Sri D.S.N.V.Prasad Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Srinivas, learned counsel representing Sri S.Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner claimed that he worked as Peon in the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited (for short ‘the Bank’), Gandepalli Branch, East Godavari, for the period from March, 1992 to February, 1996 on payment of Rs.300/- per month from March, 1992 to October, 1992 and for February, 1994. He assailed the action of the respondents in not permitting him to work in the Bank from February, 1996. He questioned the validity of memo, dated 25.01.1996 issued by respondent No.1 Bank to the Branch Manager, wherein the latter was instructed not to permit the petitioner into the branch. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents placed before this Court a copy of para-wise remarks, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner was engaged by the Manager of Gandepalli Branch, without any authorization from the competent authority; that no appointment order was issued in his favour and that no resolution was passed by the Board of Management for ratification of the Branch Manager’s action for payment of daily wages to the petitioner. It is further mentioned therein that the petitioner worked for a period of 172 days from March, 1992 to October, 1992 and also in the month of February, 1994. It is also mentioned that a sum of Rs.300/- was paid for the month of February, 1994. It is explained therein that as against the sanctioned strength of 91 Peons, various branches engaged 22 Peons in excess of the sanctioned strength without the permission of the competent authority and that the petitioner, who was unauthorisedly engaged is not entitled for regularisation. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that according to the instructions received by him after receipt of the above-mentioned para-wise remarks, the petitioner was paid wages for the period for which he worked. The petitioner has neither pleaded nor filed any material to show that he was engaged by the Branch Manager in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. V.Umadevi (3)[1] held that a person, who was engaged on daily wage basis or entered service through backdoor, has no right to seek regularisation and that unless the employer frames a scheme in this regard, the Courts shall not issue any directions therefor. This view of the Constitution Bench has been reiterated with all its vigor in the very recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others[2]. In view of the law declared by the Supreme Court, the petitioner, who admittedly was not engaged by the Branch Manager in accordance with the prescribed procedure, is not entitled to seek any direction from this Court for regularisation. As regards the payment of wages for the period for which he worked, the learned counsel for the respondents, as noted above, submitted that there are no arrears payable to the petitioner. As this falls in the realm of disputed fact, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the competent forum for payment of arrears, if any, due to him. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th DECEMBER, 2008. kvni [1] (2006) 4 SCC 1 [2] (2008) 10 SCC 1