IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9083 of 2008 Between: J. Shyam Sunder, S/o. J. Mallaiah 12-1-1/A/53, Ladminagar, Lalapet, Secunderabad-500017. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Bank, Head Office, Pattabhi Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad rep. by its General Manager (Personnel). 2 Chief Manager, Andhra Bank, Service Centre, Room No.103, Taramandal Complex, Saifabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriae writ (i) declaring the action of the respondents in not including petitioner name in the panel by duly taking into consideration of the date of joining as October / December 1989 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust (ii) declare the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for absorption as per circular dated 11.01.1995 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust; (iii) consequently direct the respondent-bank to absorb the services of the petitioner in the existing vacancy or in any future vacancies and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: DR.K.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA (SC FOR ANDHRA BANK) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9083 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner joined the service of Andhra bank in October 1989 as temporary sub-staff. In the matter of absorption of the temporary sub-staff, a settlement was arrived at, between the management of the Andhra Bank and its employees’ Union, with the participation of the representatives of the Government, and it was signed on 09.01.1995. According to this, such of the temporary sub- staff, who were engaged between 01.01.1982 and 31.12.1989 and have put in 90 days of service, are conferred with the eligibility. In the matter of fixation of seniority among such candidates, it was observed that the number of days worked in the Andhra Bank between 01.01.1982 and 16.12.1991 shall be taken into account. The petitioner states that by 16.12.1991, he has put in 140 days of service and when he was wrongly placed at serial No.311 in the seniority list, by taking the number of working days as 120, he made a representation. Subsequently, his position was restored. The petitioner contends that despite his superior position, his case is not being considered for absorption. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, stating inter alia that the petitioner did not acquire the basic qualification, inasmuch as he did not work for 90 days between 01.01.1980 and 31.12.1989. The background of the entire scheme is also explained. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner entered the service of the Bank in October 1989 as temporary sub-staff. The settlement arrived at on 09.01.1995 is comprehensive in its scope. As regards the eligibility, the following clause becomes relevant: “All those temporary candidates engaged by the Bank between 01.01.1982 and 31.12.1999 who have responded to the Press Notification of the Bank dt. 28.10.1991 and 31.10.1991 and Circular No.310 Ref.3/28 dated 18.10.1991 and who have put in a minimum ‘Service’ of 90 days or more during the above period and whose names are cleared by Directorate General of Employment & Training, Govt. of India, New Delhi, under approach paper, will be eligible for the benefits under this settlement.” From a perusal of this, it is evident that only such of the employees, who have put in 90 days’ service between 01.01.1982 and 31.12.1989, become eligible. A further condition is that they must have responded to the Press Notifications, dated 28.10.1991 and 31.10.1991. The Bank furnished a statement, dated 09.12.1991, indicating the number of days, for which the petitioner worked. It discloses that up to 31.12.1989, the petitioner worked only for 12 days, whereas up to 16.12.1991, he has put in 140 days’ service. The date ‘16.12.1991’ assumes significance, only in the context of fixation of seniority. However, unless a candidate has fulfilled the basic requirement of working for 90 days between 01.01.1982 and 31.12.1989, his case cannot be considered for absorption under that settlement. It is a different thing that if the respondents have any other facility for absorption of the staff similarly placed as the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that in case, there exists any other scheme for absorption of the existing sub-staff, the case of the petitioner shall also be considered, in accordance with the same, subject to his fulfillment of the conditions. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 24.07.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9083 of 2008 Date: 24.07.2008 JSU