Desu Krishna Kumar Vs Union Bank of India

¶1

Date of reserved for orders : -- Date of pronouncement : 06.07.2026 Date of uploading : 06.07.2026

¶2

APHC010323222026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3460] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 17697/2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

DESU KRISHNA KUMAR, S/O. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC CLERK, RIO. FLAT NO.301, CHANDRAS LITTLE ELEPHANT APARTMENT, VALLURIVARI THOTA 8TH LINE, DONKA ROAD, GUNTUR - 522002.

¶9

EMANI SAMBA SIVA RAO, S/O. SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC CLERK, RIO. D.NO. 62-13-606, CHENNAM VANI STREET, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR - 522001.

¶10

KAKUNURI CHENNAKESAVULU,, S/O. VENKATA RATNAM, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC CLERK, RIO. D.NO.1-3-741/1, ANUGOLU VANI STREET, NAZERPETA, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522201.

¶11

VISHNUMSETTI APPA RAO,, S/O. SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC.CLERK, RIO. D.NO.1-6-41/8, NAZERPET, PURUSHOTHAM VANI STREET, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522201.

¶12

2

¶13

TURAKAPALLI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. ANKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC CLERK, R/O. D.NO.17-180/1, RAMNAGAR, BABA CLINIC ROAD, VETAPALEM, BAPATLA DISTRICT - 523187.

¶14

MOKKARALA VENKATESWARLU,, S/O. ANANTHARAMULU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC. CLERK, RIO. D.NO.8-371, NEAR BILAL MASIDH, PIDUGURALLA, PALANADU DISTRICT - 522413.

¶15

KOLLIMARLA SRI HARI,, S/O. POTHURAJU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC. CLERK, RIO. D.NO.23-9-1/102, BESIDE VAIKUNTAPURAM, CHINARAVURU, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522201.

¶16

RAVULA SADASIVA RAO,, S/O. TIRUPATI SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC. CLERK, RIO. FLAT NO.102, SRIPADAM APARTMENT, SARAOA COLONY, 8TH LINE, GUNTUR - 522002.

¶17

POLISETTY JOJAPPA,, S/O. SOWRLU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC. SUB STAFF, R/O. D.NO.12-30, RASULPETA, PHIRANGIPURAM, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522529..

¶18

...PETITIONER(S)

¶19

AND

¶20

UNION BANK OF INDIA, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR UNION BANK OF INDIA, HEAD OFFICE 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021.

¶21

THE GENERAL MANAGER HR DEPARTMENT, UNION BANK OF INDIA, O/O.HEAD OFFICE 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI- 40021

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

3

¶24

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by declaring the proceedings issued by the respondents vide HR EBD No.423/2026 dated 13.04.2026, 17.06.2026, and 20.04.2026, rejecting the claim of the petitioners for counting their temporary/panel sub-staff service from the date of initial appointment till regularization as qualifying service for pensionery and retirement benefits, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the earlier orders passed by this Hon'ble Court, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India consequently to set aside the said proceedings and directing the respondents to count the service of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment as Panel Sub-Staff/temporary employees till regularization as qualifying service for the purpose of pension, gratuity, and all retirement benefits and pass such other orders.

¶25

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to count the service of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment as Panel Sub-Staff/temporary employees till regularization as qualifying service for the purpose of pension, gratuity, and all retirement benefits forthwith and pass such other orders.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶28

1.Dr CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶30

¶31

The Court made the following:

¶32

Whether the order is :

¶33

Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No

¶34

4

¶35

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶36

WRIT PETITION No.17697 of 2026

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondent No.2 in passing the impugned order vide HR EBD No.423/2026, dated 13.04.2026, 17.06.2026 and 20.04.2026 rejecting the claim of the Petitioners for counting their past temporary service for the purpose of pension, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶39

The brief facts are as follows;

¶40

The Petitioners claimed to have joined in the service of Respondent-Bank as mentioned in the below table and they are claiming for counting their past service for the purpose of pension.

¶41

S.No.	Date of joining in the service	Date of regularized of the service	Date of retirement from the services
1	05.05.1987	15.02.2008	31.03.2029
2	10.09.1986	13.03.2009	13.09.2028
3	31.07.1984	12.11.2001	30.06.2026
4	31.10.1990	13.03.2009	31.07.2032
5	19.08.1985	20.03.2009	30.06.2026
6	01.03.1987	17.03.2010	31.05.2028
7	06.12.1990	13.03.2009	31.03.2032
8	01.10.1990	13.03.2009	31.03.2032
9	15.08.1998	15.02.2008	30.08.2030

¶42

5

¶43

At the time of hearing, Dr. Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned

¶44

counsel for the Petitioners would submit that this Court in W.P.No.18793 of 2020 had considered the similar claim of fellow employees who sought for counting of their past service for the purpose of pension. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 18.04.2023 directing the Respondents therein to include the temporary service of the Petitioners prior to their absorption into service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The Writ Appeal thereon filed by Respondent-Bank as dismissed.

¶45

On the other hand, Sri K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Bank would submit that the issue of entitlement of counting past service for the purpose of pension is not in dispute in view of the Judgment of this Court W.P.No.18793 of 2020, dated 18.04.2023. However, the learned Standing Counsel would submit that the Respondent-Bank does not have the joining details of the Petitioners. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that if the Petitioners produce requisite proof of appointment date and salary slips for the relevant period, the Respondent-Bank would consider the same without raising the dispute with regard to their entitlement.

¶46

6

¶47

Having heard the respective counsel, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions;

¶48

(i) The Petitioners are directed to give their comprehensive individual representations to the Respondent-Bank with regard to their claim and proof of appointment and the period of work

¶49

in the Respondent-Bank;

¶50

(ii) In the event, there is satisfactory proof of appointment of Petitioner, the Respondent-Bank shall count the temporary service of the Petitioners prior to their absorption for the purpose of pension and for gratuity in terms of the order of this Court in W.P.No.18793 of 2020, dated 18.04.2023;

¶51

(iii) No order as to costs.

¶52